Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Well Regulated Militia? (a view that you may never have heard before)
GodSeesYou.com ^ | Unknown | Ken Kiger

Posted on 01/18/2013 12:14:05 PM PST by RightFighter

Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an "AMENDMENT". No "Articles in Amendment" to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until "further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added" "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers". (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.

In this Light:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to "amended"?

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE "MILITIA". The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the "militia" as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. "(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.)

What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the "Militia" that was so offensive to the States?

First understand that the word "militia" was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the "Militia" was every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word "militia" as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment to correct. The only definition of "Militia" that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend "People" today:

"Militia" in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power:

"To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress:

"To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Any "patriot" out there still want to be called a member of the "MILITIA" as defined by the original Constitution?

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" The only way the States would accept the "MILITIA" as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED". The States realized that "THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE" required that the "MILITIA" as originally created in the Constitution be "WELL REGULATED" by a "restrictive clause." How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED"? By demanding that "restrictive clause two" better know as the "Second Amendment" be added to the original Constitution providing:

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The States knew that "PEOPLE" with "ARMS" would "WELL REGULATE" the Federal "MILITIA"!

Now read for the first time with the full brightness of the Light of truth:

"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

For those still overcome by propaganda:

The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the "MILITIA" is not "WELL REGULATED" by "PEOPLE" keeping and bearing arms, the "MILITIA" becomes a threat to the "SECURITY OF A FREE STATE."

The "MILITIA" has no "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" in the Second Amendment, rather it is only "THE RIGHT OF THE ""PEOPLE"" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; constitution; guncontrol; gunrights; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last
I was searching for some info on gun rights and a good explanation of the 2nd amendment's wording regarding the militia yesterday, and I happened upon this site. I read this, and it was like my eyes opened for the first time to what the 2nd Amendment really means. I had never considered it in this way before. I always thought that the amendment was basically saying that we should have the right to keep and bear arms in case we need to organize as a militia to secure ourselves, but this is an entirely different perspective, and, I think probably the correct one.

Thoughts?

1 posted on 01/18/2013 12:14:13 PM PST by RightFighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

Very interesting. Good post.


2 posted on 01/18/2013 12:18:45 PM PST by JOAT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

every leftist tells me “well-regulated” means “lots of government regulations.”


3 posted on 01/18/2013 12:19:46 PM PST by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

I believe this is the correct understanding. Thank-you for posting it.


4 posted on 01/18/2013 12:20:09 PM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

I told a friend yesterday that the 2nd does not say “the right of the people to keep and bear well-regulated arms...” or “the right of the well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms...”


5 posted on 01/18/2013 12:21:33 PM PST by RightFighter (It was all for nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter
Thank you for sharing, it does make sense.

I have been studying the various state constitutions and their RTKBA language and been struck by the fact that most of them (not all) clearly define the RTKBA as an individual’s right and that self defense is often discussed as well as defense of the State.

6 posted on 01/18/2013 12:25:22 PM PST by Robert357 (D.Rather "Hoist with his own petard!" www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1223916/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

It’s an interesting perspective, but one that should be supported by contemporaneous writings if this is indeed the intent.


7 posted on 01/18/2013 12:26:38 PM PST by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter
Please read Miracle at Pennsylvania to understand how every word of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was meticulously argued and fought over.

If there had been any ambiguity in the understanding of the Second Amendment, it would not have take over 200 years to discover it.

Modern, progressive, interpretation of the founding documents have produced many falsehoods, ambiguities, penumbras and fictitious rights that the founders did not include.

8 posted on 01/18/2013 12:32:52 PM PST by Aevery_Freeman (Proud Thought Criminal since 1984)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter
From Federalist 29, Hamilton makes it clear that gun rights are a state issue. It is entirely up to each State to determine how much it wants to allow weaponry access to any potential militia members.
9 posted on 01/18/2013 12:35:41 PM PST by Hoodat ("As for God, His way is perfect" - Psalm 18:30)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

I thought “well regulated” meant “well equipped” in the vernacular of the day.


10 posted on 01/18/2013 12:36:39 PM PST by csmusaret (I will give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

ping


11 posted on 01/18/2013 12:36:52 PM PST by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter
Reading the ratification by NYS makes the right to bear arms much clearer. Please be aware that all the "brains" edited it to death when they finally approved the Bill of Rights.

What we know with absolute certainity is the Bill of Rights pertains to each and every one of us as "an individual".

Read my next post please.

12 posted on 01/18/2013 12:38:21 PM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_decl-ny.htm


13 posted on 01/18/2013 12:39:12 PM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

Thank you very much.


14 posted on 01/18/2013 12:44:38 PM PST by onyx (FREE REPUBLIC IS HERE TO STAY! DONATE MONTHLY! IF YOU WANT ON SARAH PALIN''S PING LIST, LET ME KNOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FReepers; Patriots; FRiends





Please Support Free Republic Today!

15 posted on 01/18/2013 12:45:19 PM PST by onyx (FREE REPUBLIC IS HERE TO STAY! DONATE MONTHLY! IF YOU WANT ON SARAH PALIN''S PING LIST, LET ME KNOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni
It needs to be clarified how “regulated,” even used in the wrong context as gun grabbers often do to support their agenda, doesn't mean what they think it does. The framers of the Constitution never said that regulated equals government control. It meant trained and equipped. It's the same as bleeding hearts redefining “welfare” to mean the government trough and not its real original intended meaning of well being.
16 posted on 01/18/2013 12:49:37 PM PST by Hillarys Gate Cult (Liberals make unrealistic demands on reality and reality doesn't oblige them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

As it is almost impossible to debate any Saul Alinsky loving liberal with just a few words. When they try to force me into the militia quagmire, I simply reply.

“No honest person could possibly look at the 1st to 5th Amendments (call them what ever you want but keep it short) and not realize every one of them was 100% to protect the citizens from an overreaching government therefore “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” is the definitive term and with the very first gun law passed the federal government violated the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

“SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” is not grey it is an absolute. There is no wiggle room in “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” yet we have allowed them to make the phrase meaningless.

The lying, dishonest, treasonous scum on the left, from our boy community organizer on down, are either too ignorant or are truly the enemy within and working to implement every element of the communist manifesto.

I maintain, our right to protect ourselves from an overreaching government DEMANDS we have equal fire power to what ever the government is willing to use against its own citizens. If that statement is wrong then the RTKBA is completely meaningless as they could regulate us down to slingshots and still claim we are armed.


17 posted on 01/18/2013 12:50:12 PM PST by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Hill

ping


18 posted on 01/18/2013 12:54:48 PM PST by Jim Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

This dovetails well with the understanding that the founders did not envision having a large standing armed forces as we have today.


19 posted on 01/18/2013 12:56:33 PM PST by Iron Munro (I Miss America, don't you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret
I agree. Regulated meant to make regular, common, in good working order, armed with what is in common use.

It is also clear that the right is a right of the people.

It doesn't really matter what is in the first part, all that matters is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The first part could have said anything and it wouldn't change it.

“Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, being necessary to feed Elvis, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

It might be a dumb reason for doing so, but it doesn't change the intent of the amendment.

20 posted on 01/18/2013 1:04:04 PM PST by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

“...contemporaneous writings...”


“I ask, sir, what is the militia?
It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
~ George Mason-1788
-
“Congress has no power to disarm the militia.
Their swords,
and every other terrible implement of the soldier,
are the birth-right of an American.
The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands
of either the federal or state governments, but,
where I trust in God it will ever remain,
in the hands of the people.”
~ Tench Coxe
-
“No legislative act contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.
To deny this, would be to affirm, that the servant is above his master;
that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves;
that men acting by virtue of powers may do
not only what their powers do not authorize
but what they forbid.“
~ Alexander Hamilton
-


21 posted on 01/18/2013 1:04:24 PM PST by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

I agree. The contemporaneous writings should be examined with this in mind.

That being said, last week I came across this Penn & Teller video where they weigh in on the debate with an argument matching this thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM


22 posted on 01/18/2013 1:05:39 PM PST by the_Watchman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Aevery_Freeman
The Second Amendment is about far more than firearms, or militia, or even weapons in general ~ it is about a single expression ~ to wit: "the right to keep and bear arms".

That is a body of traditional privilege and rights that were worked out over thousands of years to differentiate the class obligated to defend the state from the class of commoners, not so obligated, or of slaves.

The term "people" applied to everyone ~ even slaves ~ as determined by state law ~ and was about as universal as you can get. The Supreme Court has made some determinations that "people" even gives rights to illegal aliens and jailed prisoners.

So, that's where we are ~ mystical origins in dawn of time ~ and somebody forgot to mention this in the body of the Constitution itself.

I'd be somewhat concerned with what it was motivated the Constitution's writers to fail to deal with one of the more overriding concerns of the time ~ the status of the NOBILITY ~ please note they said the gub'mnt couldn't give you a title of nobility, but that didn't necessarily mean you weren't still a nobleman!

Think about that a moment ~ the Constituion prohibits federal or state involvement in giving noble titles to folks BUT it doesn't abolish the class system inherited from Great Britain, and Europe in general ~ or from Indo-European history.

...........

Enough thinking time. So what did the Founders do about this pressing problem? That's where I think the Second Amendment comes into play ~ it assumes the right to keep and bear arms is part of the rights and privileges inherent in being a person in America ~ that is, that you are a nobleman just because you are here ~ and the federal government is prohibited from abridging any of the privileges and subordinate rights that derive from noble status!

So, what special rights did a nobleman have? For starters all noblemen could actually

keep arms ~

hire arms makers ~

own forges and foundries ~

breed war horses ~

arm their ships ~

arm their wagons and other rolling stock ~

build castles ~

build defensive walls and ditches ~

stock gunpowder ~ ........ ~

and most important in an earlier time, keep armor!

Non nobles were simply prohibited from doing or having any of those things!

The body of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights recognize many other rights and privileges that pertained only to nobles ~ in fact, most all of the rights named in the Constitution in any way were, in an earlier time, rights only nobles had!

once you have all that firmly in mind you immediately discover what it was they were saying about slavery ~ that in states where some people were property their rights could be abridged, but where people were people, they were assumed to be noblemen with all the rights and privileges attendent there to.

At the same time the Founders did abolish the former class system. Removal of the Second Amendment would re-establish the class system ~ because nothing else abolishes it.

23 posted on 01/18/2013 1:27:28 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

More like, A good supply of trained knights being necessary to the defence of the kingdom, the rights of the noble classes to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


24 posted on 01/18/2013 1:29:10 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

Yep. Sounds about right. Preamble kinda bears that out too...

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”


25 posted on 01/18/2013 1:35:10 PM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

Wrong. Art 6 Para 2 clearly states, “laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding”.

Ie; “Shall not be infringed” applies to them as well via the Supremacy clause.

Heller decision by the SCOTUS bears this out.


26 posted on 01/18/2013 1:37:25 PM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult

The active militia were to be “regulated”. The inactive militia have a Right to keep and bear arms, but need a certain amount of equipment and weapons if they want to serve as active militia.

Read the Militia Act.


27 posted on 01/18/2013 1:40:08 PM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter; All
I really liked the article. It introduces some nuances concerning 2A which I had never considered.

HOWEVER..

There is a big problem with modern interpretations of the BoR imo, including 2A.

More specifically, as a consequence of many patriots being seemingly unaware of the Founders' division of federal and state powers evidenced by the Constitution's Section 8 of Article I, Article V and the 10th Amendment, please consider the following nuance on the BoR which might surprise a few people.

The drafters of the BoR originally decided that the government prohibitions / limitations of power in the BoR applied only to Congress, not to the states. (14A changed the scope of prohibitions / limitations of government powers to include the states, but did not change personal rights.)

In fact, a recent thread in FR referenced United States v. Cruikshank, a case where the Supreme Court clarified 2A gun rights in the context of the Founders' division of federal and state government powers. Here is a key statement from United States v. Cruikshank.

"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes (emphasis added), to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States." --United States v. Cruikshank, 1875.

28 posted on 01/18/2013 1:40:44 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

This is the meaning I had inferred was most likely just from the second amendment itself...now having the link to the rest of the Constitution highlighted like this, it makes me more convinced that my reading was correct. Thanks for posting this :-).


29 posted on 01/18/2013 1:43:23 PM PST by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

Reference bump ... ;-)


30 posted on 01/18/2013 1:58:11 PM PST by Tunehead54 (Nothing funny here ;-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret
I thought “well regulated” meant “well equipped” in the vernacular of the day.

Interesting. You inspired me to google the etymology of the word regulate to see if it used to mean something different. According to this page of an online Etymology dictionary:

regulate (v).
1630s, from Late Latin regulatus, pp. of regulare "to control by rule, direct" (5c.), from Latin regula "rule" (see regular). Related: Regulated; regulating.

While this does not tell us what the founders meant by it for certain, it seems that the original 1630 meaning had nothing to do with equipping but with controlling by direct rule....which is kind of what it still means today.

Still I am no expert on the language of this time, and am open to evidence that the founders may have meant well equipped--outside of opinions expressed by debates of the second amendment, where the interpretation may be colored by one's views.

31 posted on 01/18/2013 1:58:31 PM PST by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

Thanks.


32 posted on 01/18/2013 1:59:08 PM PST by deweyfrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

If I read your words correctly, I think of the wording of the 2nd in exactly the same way, that the people must be armed in order to ensure a well regulated militia. A “well regulated” means logicistically supplied and properly familiar and practiced with their arms.


33 posted on 01/18/2013 1:59:08 PM PST by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

” It is entirely up to each State to determine how much it wants to allow weaponry access to any potential militia members.”

And the Empire State was in such a hurry to infringe on a right that “shall not be infringed” that it forgot to give its own armed agents a pass.


34 posted on 01/18/2013 2:01:34 PM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
1st Amend says "Congress shall make no law". 2nd Amend simply states "shall not be infringed" with no limit on who may have attempted said infringement.

Cruikshank ignores Art 6 para 2 "laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding, Judges in every State shall be bound thereby..."

So no... A State can't "infringe" on your RKBA either.

Of course, if you are running around committing violent crimes against others with them, the use of a weapon would have a bearing on your sentencing.

35 posted on 01/18/2013 2:04:54 PM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter
After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until "further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added" "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers". (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.

What has always puzzled me, and continues to do so is that the "preamble to the Amendments" of the Bill of Rights has never been published in a way that can be easily found by the modern American. I have never seen it. Even this article, which purports to clarify and demystify the meaning of the document, Fails to quote the entire preamble in its entirety. Or, better yet, include a facsimile of the actual preamble.

We can argue and debate the original meaning til doomsday, but lacking a complete set of documents, manuscripts and debates related to them, we are stuck with poor "translations" and opinions by charlatans with questionable agendas, huge egos and no interest whatsoever in simply discovering and disseminating facts and truth.

36 posted on 01/18/2013 2:08:19 PM PST by publius911 (Look for the Union Label -- then buy something else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius911

Not trying very hard...

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

http://www.drexel.edu/usconstitution/billOfRights/preamble/

And here’s the full debate list for the Bill of Rights...

http://constitution.org/dhbr.htm

And yes, I’ve read them all.


37 posted on 01/18/2013 2:12:45 PM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

Perhaps a simple way to state the obvious is: The 2nd Amendment does not give a right to bear arms to people, rather, it implies the pre-existing right (also known as a “natural right” shall not be infringed.


38 posted on 01/18/2013 2:13:42 PM PST by vortigern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
If I read your words correctly, I think of the wording of the 2nd in exactly the same way, that the people must be armed in order to ensure a well regulated militia. A “well regulated” means logicistically supplied and properly familiar and practiced with their arms.

Hmmm, I am reading it slightly differently than both you and the article as I reflect upon the points made in the article.

I think "well regulated" means directly controlled by the federal government, and "militia" means the military that the federal government controls. By "necessary for a free state" I take it to mean that in order to secure national security, we need to give the federal government to power to have such a militia.

I take the inherent danger of having a regular military controlled the federal government to go without saying.

In modern vernacular I would say the amendment would read:

"Since the feds need to have a regular military under their command in order to keep our country secure, it would be insane to leave everybody vulnerable to the abuse of that controlled military by infringing on their God given right to keep and bear their own arms"

39 posted on 01/18/2013 2:15:28 PM PST by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

Good source and here is Noah Websters American dictionary of 1828
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/regulate

regulate

REG’ULATE, v.t.

1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.


40 posted on 01/18/2013 2:18:23 PM PST by winodog (Thank you Jesus for the calm in my life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

That’s what the very definition of Amendment in a contract is, a refining of the specifics, not a REDEFINING of them.


41 posted on 01/18/2013 2:18:39 PM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

My thought is too many caps.

But seriously, I’ve always been horrified by the concept that the militia consists of all able-bodied males. For then it would seem the feds are empowered to conscript, which is among the chiefest of gubmint evils. No, there is no latent militia. That’s never how it was. The militia is the activmobilized: those whom have been mobilized. The pool out of which militias are culled is not itself the militia.

How it used to work is in time of emergency the colonial legislators would call for volunteers, assigning quotas to local recruiters. The recruiters would go around signing people up. Should they not meet their quota, then men could be drafted. Once inducted the men were part of the militia, not before.

All able-bodied males never were the militia. The militia is that group which has been called up. The feds never had the power to draft. It was the states’ job to raise militias. Once they were in existence the feds could use them, in a limited manner. They do and did NOT have the power to mobilize the citizenry.


42 posted on 01/18/2013 2:45:18 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

It doesn’t much matter what the rest of the amendment’s text is trying to say. The part with the force of law, that the people have a right to keep and bear arms and that it shall not be infringed, is clear and cannot possibly be misconstrued except through mendacity or gross ignorance.


43 posted on 01/18/2013 2:49:12 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

To regulate means to “keep regular.” Nowadays it might as well mean the opposite, which us to outlaw.


44 posted on 01/18/2013 2:50:40 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

To regulate means to “keep regular.” Nowadays it might as well mean the opposite, which is to outlaw.


45 posted on 01/18/2013 2:50:51 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

Not intent, meaning. Meaning controls. Intent is up in the air, legally speaking.


46 posted on 01/18/2013 2:52:29 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret; AndyTheBear
I thought “well regulated” meant “well equipped” in the vernacular of the day.

Ever hear of "regulars" in the language of the time?

Or the words "Regular Army" in today's time?

Or "Irregulars"? Those who didn't drill, have military discipline, proper formations, morale, uniforms, or other accoutrements a proper, "regular" army would have?

Many units, even in the Civil War, were "irregular," and had varied uniforms, training, discipline, and weapons.

That's what they meant by "well-regulated"--they meant the difference between what Gen. George Washington inherited at the start, and what he and Baron Von Steuben and others crafted during the years of war.

We began the War for Independence with an irregular militia.

Then, they became a well-regulated militia. Some men left after the war to go back to farming.

By the end of the war, we had a proper Army.

The Founders were evidently saying that a militia should be well TRAINED (made regular), but the clear implication by culture, tradition, and language of the 2nd Amendment was that, similar to the Swiss, we have for every man, his own weapon, and so ownership is an indvidual right. (We all agree on that.)

Excellent post, btw!

47 posted on 01/18/2013 2:56:38 PM PST by sauron ("Truth is hate to those who hate Truth" --unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret; AndyTheBear
I thought “well regulated” meant “well equipped” in the vernacular of the day.

Ever hear of "regulars" in the language of the time?

Or the words "Regular Army" in today's time?

Or "Irregulars"? Those who didn't drill, have military discipline, proper formations, morale, uniforms, or other accoutrements a proper, "regular" army would have?

Many units, even in the Civil War, were "irregular," and had varied uniforms, training, discipline, and weapons.

That's what they meant by "well-regulated"--they meant the difference between what Gen. George Washington inherited at the start, and what he and Baron Von Steuben and others crafted during the years of war.

We began the War for Independence with an irregular militia.

Then, they became a well-regulated militia. Some men left after the war to go back to farming.

By the end of the war, we had a proper Army.

The Founders were evidently saying that a militia should be well TRAINED (made regular), but the clear implication by culture, tradition, and language of the 2nd Amendment was that, similar to the Swiss, we have for every man, his own weapon, and so ownership is an indvidual right. (We all agree on that.)

Excellent post, btw!

48 posted on 01/18/2013 2:56:58 PM PST by sauron ("Truth is hate to those who hate Truth" --unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret; AndyTheBear
I thought “well regulated” meant “well equipped” in the vernacular of the day.

Ever hear of "regulars" in the language of the time?

Or the words "Regular Army" in today's time?

Or "Irregulars"? Those who didn't drill, have military discipline, proper formations, morale, uniforms, or other accoutrements a proper, "regular" army would have?

Many units, even in the Civil War, were "irregular," and had varied uniforms, training, discipline, and weapons.

That's what they meant by "well-regulated"--they meant the difference between what Gen. George Washington inherited at the start, and what he and Baron Von Steuben and others crafted during the years of war.

We began the War for Independence with an irregular militia.

Then, they became a well-regulated militia. Some men left after the war to go back to farming.

By the end of the war, we had a proper Army.

The Founders were evidently saying that a militia should be well TRAINED (made regular), but the clear implication by culture, tradition, and language of the 2nd Amendment was that, similar to the Swiss, we have for every man, his own weapon, and so ownership is an indvidual right. (We all agree on that.)

Excellent post, btw!

49 posted on 01/18/2013 2:56:58 PM PST by sauron ("Truth is hate to those who hate Truth" --unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter
Read John Petrie’s Collection of Thomas Jefferson Quotes.
And if that's not enough, read The Rights of the Colonists by Samuel Adams.
50 posted on 01/18/2013 3:00:10 PM PST by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson