What does "well regulated" mean?
Question for 2nd Amendment Advocates...
Posts
Total:
43
Who cares, they have LGBT to worry about this month.
Jesus f****** Christ we have 20 abortion posts now we're going to have 20 gun posts.
i've heard 'well regulated' means 'well functioning' basically. which if that's true, it's plausible to say the second amendment gives an unalienable right to a gun. except, given 'bear arms' means to have a gun in a militia, they should be saying they have a right to 'keep' arms instead. of course, focusing on the word 'keep' ignores the rest of the amendment and ignores the history of the amendment and the original meaning.... that people have a right to a gun for a militia.
"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."-the phrase "bear arms" historically meant to use a gun in a militia. the preface of the amendment says the purpose regards militias.-“The people”: The founders used this phrase to mean not individual persons, but rather the body politic, the people as a whole. During the ratification debate in Virginia, speakers used the phrase “the people” 50 times when discussing the militia. Every single mention referred to Virginians as a group, not as individuals.-when the constitutional convention occurred, they didn't talk about the need for people to have guns or self defense, all the emphasis was on the need for a militia and the militia langauge in the constitution. the following links are for both this factoid and the next one too.-From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun-when the amendment was passed they had all kinds of laws regarding who could have guns for all kinds of reasons, along with gun control-here are some highlights about gun laws during the founding era:
-stand your ground laws were not the law. colonists had the duty to retreat if possible.
-public and concealed carry in populated areas was banned
-anyone who didn't swear loyalty to the state couldn't have a gun. it's far fetched to say as today's conservatives do that guns were protected to protect against the state when back then the state was disarming people they thought were disloyal
-the state disarmed people for the purposes of furthering the government. one of washington's first acts was to disarm the people of queens new york.
-all guns had to be registered and inspected
-some states regulated the use of gun powder
-some cities prohibited firing guns in the city limit
-some cities prohibited loaded firearms in houses
-only one state protected gun rights outside of the militia
-several states rejected the idea of gun rights for self defense or hunting, even though conservatives today claim it was already protected by the second amendmnet
-indians and blacks were barred from having guns-the supreme court historically didn't touch the amendment much, but when they did treated it as pertaining to militias. as recently as the reagan administration, the conservatives said the same thing. it was called a quote unquote "fraud" on the public, to say otherwise, by the conservative chief justice Burger.-drafts of the amendment included a conscioustious objector clause, if you objected to militia duty for religious reasons you can be exempt from a militia. this reinforces that the amendment pertained to militia stuff.-half the population from postal workers to priests were exempt from the militia. this reinforces that it wasn't generally understood that the people informally make up an informal militia. a militia is what a state defines it as.-all the amendments have limits on them. including the first amendment. you can always read into the amendment what exactly it means to infringe on someone's rights, and find other reasonable exceptions-the bill of rights and this amendment was originally designed as a safeguard against the federal government. that's why some hard core conservatives say states should be free to regulate as they see fit. others, say the fourteenth amendment incorporated parts of the bills of rights including the second against the states as fundamental "liberty" interests. each amendment can be incorporated on an individual basis depending on the merits of whether the amendment represents a fundamental 'liberty' interest. the issue still exists though, that how can you incorporate something as a fundamental right if it was never there to begin with?-what does "arms" mean? if we want to be originalists and faithful to orginal intent, there is a difference between military grade weopons and the muskets they had when the amendment was passed-you would have to use the word "keep" in the amendment to spin your way into individual rights. this ignores all the historical and amendment itself context, and ignores straighforward reading of the words taken together.-the following is a common set of quotes from the founding fathers. if you google each of the stronger looking ones here or that you find around the internet, you will see them taken out of context or misquoted. for example, here is the proper context of washington's first point, where he was simply addressing the need for a militia (see the second link below for even more context)- in other words, the people should be armed and disciplined for a militia if the State has a plan for a militia... so the question remains, if they are not disciplined for a militia, why should we assume they should have a right to otherwise be armed? Washington even went so far as to say it was a condition in having them be armed and disciplined for a militia, that there be some sort of formalized plan, a "requisite" condition:""Among the many interesting objects, which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.The proper establishment of the Troops which may be deemed indispensible, will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it, it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the Officers and Soldiers with a due regard to economy.""
Jesus f****** Christ we have 20 abortion posts now we're going to have 20 gun posts.
If that's what it takes for the gun nuts to recognize the absurdity of what they're defending.
BTW, since you blocked me why are you replying on my thread?
I enjoy that fact that not a single one of them could answer your question.
Not sure why anyone has to answer the question. It's in the Constitution, it's part of an amendment, if somebody wants to argue it I suppose they should approach the Supreme Court about it and see if it's legitimate isn't that what the court does?
It is not written in the Amendment what 'well regulated' means, instead that is the interpretation being questioned.
What does "well regulated" mean?
What it means in context; i.e., not what you think it means.
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.
-->
@coal
Well, still no definition but that's a start.
Since you italicized "militia", would you care to define that in 1776 terms and help us understand the full context of this statement?
-->
@RationalMadman
I enjoy that fact that not a single one of them could answer your question.
^^^
-->
@Double_R
A militia, in 1776, was comprised of ordinary people who answered the call to arms solely in response to an imminent threat. The colonies, unlike other colonial powers, were highly averse to maintaining standing armies. The other option is a militia. To have a militia implies that arms --- and not just any arms, but arms of sufficient force to repel an external invasion --- were meant to be held in private citizens' hands, at all times and without exception. According to the framers.
Whatever distinctions in operation may distinguish firearms of the 18th century from the present, they were the most portable and lethal weapons available to anyone at that time (just as firearms tend to be now). The point was that militias were the less worse alternative, in the framers' view.
The argument that we no longer require a militia because we have a profoundly well equipped standing military holds no currency, either. If you were wondering, which I assume you were. That is because the point of a militia was to distribute lethal power among individuals who, and by implication away from centralized (read: federal) government.
-->
@coal
In fact, you could own a cannon to protect your ship from pirates.
-->
@Double_R
What does "well regulated" mean?
Definitely doesn’t mean “ban all guns.”
-->
@Double_R
What does "well regulated" mean?
To answer your questions seriously though, in the context of colonial America, it means “well-functioning.”
-->
@Greyparrot
The fact that Anti-Federalists who literally were against a central government wanted the central government to “well-regulate” something they considered a right is pretty laughable.
-->
@ILikePie5
Central planning has always historically worked. Ask any tyrant.
-->
@RationalMadman
That is correct. It is quite alarming on that front
-->
@coal
Most people are ordinary.
Two arms, two legs and a head type of thing.
Most with the internal ability to interpret an old narrative any way that they choose.
As exemplified above.
One would have hoped that the U.S. was suitably civilised now, whereby gangs of armed ordinary folk were an unnecessary requirement.
Though maybe paranoia is still socially inherent....It would seem that way.
And of course there is also the pseudo-sexual attraction of handling and discharging lethal weaponry to consider.
I doubt that the "framers" gave much thought to the psychological instability of "ordinary people" under intense emotional pressure.
-->
@Double_R
@ the witch. BTW, since you blocked me why are you replying on my thread?
Because she wants her cake and eat it.
-->
@coal
To have a militia implies that arms --- and not just any arms, but arms of sufficient force to repel an external invasion --- were meant to be held in private citizens' hands, at all times and without exception. According to the framers.
I'm not reading anything in the constitution nor federalist papers that supports the idea that any individual was to have the right you're implying.
The second amendment by emphasizing "a well regulated", which essentially meant "well organized" makes clear that this was not meant towards the individual. And in federalist 29 Hamilton states
"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
Clearly, he was talking about individuals trained and dedicated to the malitia as being the target of this provision.
What else are you reading?
-->
@Double_R
I'm not reading anything in the constitution nor federalist papers . . .
Have you read the federalist papers? Or any single one?
List them.
Consider the audacity of your views. Do you think, seriously, that it was by accident that the right to bear arms was listed second only to the right to freely speak, think and communicate with the body politic? As if the framers somehow included language they felt unnecessary?
For a general summary, see https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf.
Note that Stevens historically illiterate dissent, I am sure, was written by a law clerk who was likely as unpromising as Sotomayor's current clerk who leaked that long-awaited opinion correctly overturning Roe.
You will be shocked to learn, I am sure, that James Madison agrees with me (and Antonin Scalia, as luck may have it).
In Federalist No. 46, Madison conscientiously recognized the risks associated with a large, sustained army. And the risks were not merely practical, but political. Men armed in decentralized militias were a check against tyranny as much the militias themselves.
Madison underscored that an armed
citizenry was necessary to discount the possibility of federal
oppression, therein. The language "being necessary to the security of a free State," after all, refers to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," not "[a] well regulated militia":
Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.
Madison emphasized the importance of the American people's individual right to bear arms as a point of express contrast between the United States and "the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe," comprised of governments that "[we]re afraid to trust the people with arms," (quoting Federalist No. 46).
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.. . .Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
You should also refresh your recollection on what Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 29, since he makes exactly the same point I stated above. For example:
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions.. . .This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
Your quote above simply relates to the burden of achieving a militia that was, in fact, "well regulated." It has nothing whatsoever to do with any restraint on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Any such reading is absurd, to the point of being nonsensical.
-->
@coal
big flaws in your argument.
one, is that the founders never even mentioned anything about self defense or any other reason than a militia for the second amendment during the convention. it's possible to say it's implied, but it's a major blow to your argument to assume something that big. two, militias were defined back in those days by the state. young, old, religious peeps, many government workers etc were not included in the militia. why should we assume them or anyone not currently defined as a militia should be entitled to a gun? three, there were all kinds of regulations regarding guns in the founding days. four, 'bear arms' in those days meant to have a gun in a militia, not just carry a gun.
i could go on and on. you sound very ignorant and/or narrow minded.
-->
@coal
So... What did 'well regulated' mean? Instead of telling us what you think it didn't mean, tell us what it meant. So far you have not even alluded to it, you basically said every citizen no matter what should get firearms.
What does that even mean? How is that regulated?
Well regulated did not mean subject to "regulation" from a centralized authority, because there was no such centralized authority at the time of this country's founding. The phrase "well regulated" did refer, however, to something specific that was outlined in the Federalist Papers I and the other guy have cited above.
Well regulated meant non-inferior to a standing army in skill, aptitude and discipline. Hamilton specifically voiced this concern in Federalist No. 29, arguing that:
[As compared to standing armies, the militias should be] . . . little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
The idea that "well regulated" meant "subject to restraint by the state" is in direct contravention of what purpose the militias were supposed to serve. The idea was that not just some, but all American males of sufficient age should be not only able to use firearms, but should bear them so as to stand ready to defend their rights as well of those of their fellow citizens. The degree of their skill and discipline (i.e., regulation) should be little, if at all, inferior to the skill of a professional soldier.
This concept is further understood in the context of the struggles Washington faced when leading the colonial army, to repel the British before a certain Prussian general (whose name I forget) taught Washington the concept of standard troop regulation. Before then, colonial armies were subject to the same level of desertion and incompetence as Russia's draftees in Ukraine, now.
-->
@n8nrgim
The extent of your historical illiteracy is such that no response is required.
How dare you speak to me.
then you settled it, you are ignorant, yet refuse to learn. if you are capable of critical thinking, go back to the sources i cited in previous posts that cite what i say as true. 'bear arms' means to use a gun in a militia. that's a fact. i dont know if you are too ignorant to learn more, or just too stupid.
no, yeah, you are right.... no mention of self defense during the constitutional convention, and then taking two hundred years for the idea of self defense to be applied to the second amendment by law reviews who all previously took positions opposite yours. but yes, it's obvious we needed hundreds of years to figure it out. far out theory, man.
the history and politics of the second amendment scholarship