- Messages
- 4,807
- Reactions
- 5,097
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Washington Second amendment language
- Thread Starter coop44
- Start date
militia - Google Search
www.google.com
regulated - Google Search
www.google.com
Militia relates to civilians. Regulated would mean they are of no threat to the constitution and declaration of independence. At the time of writing, they probably figured that loyalists were not privy to the same freedoms. Recall that line on your 4473 that asks if you have renounced your US citizenship. It is also likely that the new government did not want people arming themselves against anyone but the crown and loyalists. The phrasing also likely pertains to directing those militia towards engagements that would benefit the new government. Perhaps that notion comes from presentism.
I fail to see how there could be much room for differing interpretation, it's the most bluntly written amendment.
- Messages
- 859
- Reactions
- 1,096
In the context of the second amendment, regulated means equipped and maintained.
So if we were to Wright the second amendment in a more modern language it would be more along....
A well equipped group of organized and trained fighting citizens, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
At least this is what I've read... I haven't dived any deeper than that and am in no way a historian.
So if we were to Wright the second amendment in a more modern language it would be more along....
A well equipped group of organized and trained fighting citizens, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
At least this is what I've read... I haven't dived any deeper than that and am in no way a historian.
Last Edited:
^^^ THIS ^^^
That has always been my understanding. Google scholars have changed the meaning from what it meant at the time, which was pretty well understood by the citizens of that time. One has to go back to historical writings, not today's interpretations and musings of supposed and self identified scholars.
"Well regulated" means well equipped and maintained.
"Militia" was and is the armed citizens at large upon which the govt may draw when needed, as distinct from soldiers of the Continental Army. Using the term "militia" like one would use the term "minutia" is IMO incorrect and opposing common usage of the word. Saying "militia" to identify a group of organized fighters is a different use of the term, as in The Patriot Militia. And use of the word to describe groups such as Patriot Prayer as "militia" is a different usage too, though IMO not an accurate description/usage.
I largely agree with the last two posts. If I meet anyone who doesn't agree that we are the well regulated 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.") I would simply say that we keep and bear arms to keep "them" regulated
We either ARE the militia or we are armed to keep whoever the militia is, regulated.
Either way, our Natural right is to keep and bear arms and the government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon that right by the restriction placed upon them in the 2nd.
We either ARE the militia or we are armed to keep whoever the militia is, regulated.
Either way, our Natural right is to keep and bear arms and the government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon that right by the restriction placed upon them in the 2nd.
- Messages
- 283
- Reactions
- 366
"…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"
To fully understand the terms and usage one has to read historical narratives about the era and what was being discussed by our Founding Fathers.
Realize that there was a lot of friction between the Federalists and the Anti's just like today only a little more civilized! And understand the definition of Democratic Republic!
The fist issue was the issue of a "standing army being a threat to the people"! (Except in the time of war!)
Years before the start of the Revolution the Colonists recognized the necessity of a well trained and armed group of citizens to defend against tyranny. Each Colony established their own "Constitution", most had a provision for armed and trained citizens. Think "Minutemen"!
The local governing bodies financed and provided arms for all the males of a certain age excluding conscientious objectors. Some arms were kept in homes, some were stored in central locations. (Gun Control!!??)
The first battle of the Revolution was an attempt by the British to seize the arms and ammunition at Lexington and Concord. The Patriots chased the Brits all the way back to Boston. In the after action report the British General commended the Patriots for their bravery and marksmanship! (Well Regulated!!??)
The Declaration Of Independence was written to secure support from France in alliance against Britain!
The Constitution was written to define the powers of the centralized government and lacked guarantees for the rights of the people! The Constitution was delayed while the States wrestled with the Bill Of Rights, the first 10 amendments! The original Colonies had their own Constitutions and were hashed out get the BOR's ratified.
Scholar's believe the three most important Articles to give power to the people are the 1st, 2nd and 4th!
So there ya have it ! The Second Amendment cannot be confused! It defines the power of the people to keep and bare arms and a fundamental liberty!
Smiles,
RE: "The Founding Fathers' Second Amendment", by Stephen P. Halbrook
To fully understand the terms and usage one has to read historical narratives about the era and what was being discussed by our Founding Fathers.
Realize that there was a lot of friction between the Federalists and the Anti's just like today only a little more civilized! And understand the definition of Democratic Republic!
The fist issue was the issue of a "standing army being a threat to the people"! (Except in the time of war!)
Years before the start of the Revolution the Colonists recognized the necessity of a well trained and armed group of citizens to defend against tyranny. Each Colony established their own "Constitution", most had a provision for armed and trained citizens. Think "Minutemen"!
The local governing bodies financed and provided arms for all the males of a certain age excluding conscientious objectors. Some arms were kept in homes, some were stored in central locations. (Gun Control!!??)
The first battle of the Revolution was an attempt by the British to seize the arms and ammunition at Lexington and Concord. The Patriots chased the Brits all the way back to Boston. In the after action report the British General commended the Patriots for their bravery and marksmanship! (Well Regulated!!??)
The Declaration Of Independence was written to secure support from France in alliance against Britain!
The Constitution was written to define the powers of the centralized government and lacked guarantees for the rights of the people! The Constitution was delayed while the States wrestled with the Bill Of Rights, the first 10 amendments! The original Colonies had their own Constitutions and were hashed out get the BOR's ratified.
Scholar's believe the three most important Articles to give power to the people are the 1st, 2nd and 4th!
So there ya have it ! The Second Amendment cannot be confused! It defines the power of the people to keep and bare arms and a fundamental liberty!
Smiles,
RE: "The Founding Fathers' Second Amendment", by Stephen P. Halbrook
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 23,294
- Reactions
- 111,623
At the time the 2nd Amendment was written , "well regulated" meant to be equipped to a certain standard.
For instance , if one showed to a Militia muster with a poorly maintained firearm or the less than required amount of ammunition , one could be fined or have faced jail time.
A far cry from today , where many firearms and the amount of ammunition are curtailed , banned or otherwise restricted.
Something I find interesting is that at one time , one could buy or mail order the then current US military rifle , right to one's home.
( Here I am talking about the 1903 Springfield Rifle )
During this time period ( 1903 -1940 ) , we did have crime of course...but there was no clamor for the stopping of civilian access to the then issued US military rifle.
And yes I am aware of the 1934 Gun Control Act....What I am saying is that US citizens had easy access to the then US issued Infantry rifle and no huge wave of violence was committed with it.
A more important discussion , to me at least , is not what the words mean in the 2nd Amendment* , but how as a people or society has changed , since the 2nd Amendment was written.
* Yes the words in the 2nd Amendment and their meanings are important...again to me , at least , they are clear.
The old saying of : "With great power , comes great responsibility " , could easily be written as :
"With great Rights , comes great responsibility."
We have the Right to keep and bear Arms....we also have the responsibility to use that Right wisely.
Please note that I am not against one owning whatever "Arms" one wants or can afford...
It is important to note that the 2nd Amendment does not say :
"...the right to keep and bear Arms , but only certain types of Arms and only for specific purposes , shall not be infringed."
Own what you want...or not....Just don't make that choice for me.
Andy
For instance , if one showed to a Militia muster with a poorly maintained firearm or the less than required amount of ammunition , one could be fined or have faced jail time.
A far cry from today , where many firearms and the amount of ammunition are curtailed , banned or otherwise restricted.
Something I find interesting is that at one time , one could buy or mail order the then current US military rifle , right to one's home.
( Here I am talking about the 1903 Springfield Rifle )
During this time period ( 1903 -1940 ) , we did have crime of course...but there was no clamor for the stopping of civilian access to the then issued US military rifle.
And yes I am aware of the 1934 Gun Control Act....What I am saying is that US citizens had easy access to the then US issued Infantry rifle and no huge wave of violence was committed with it.
A more important discussion , to me at least , is not what the words mean in the 2nd Amendment* , but how as a people or society has changed , since the 2nd Amendment was written.
* Yes the words in the 2nd Amendment and their meanings are important...again to me , at least , they are clear.
The old saying of : "With great power , comes great responsibility " , could easily be written as :
"With great Rights , comes great responsibility."
We have the Right to keep and bear Arms....we also have the responsibility to use that Right wisely.
Please note that I am not against one owning whatever "Arms" one wants or can afford...
It is important to note that the 2nd Amendment does not say :
"...the right to keep and bear Arms , but only certain types of Arms and only for specific purposes , shall not be infringed."
Own what you want...or not....Just don't make that choice for me.
Andy
- Messages
- 8,632
- Reactions
- 12,878
All correct but the 2nd is a limitation on the actions of the Government not something that gives the public anything.
- Messages
- 283
- Reactions
- 366
Read Post#6!
- Messages
- 2,632
- Reactions
- 4,003
We see the concept of "regulated" in language used by the military even today ... albeit it not as frequently today as since the Korean War era.
Have you ever heard a phrase like "He's REGULAR Army."? The term regular (stemming from the archaic use of regulated) referred to active duty personnel delineating them from the reserve components. Regular army meant he was serving, wearing the uniform, and was GI (government issue) in his equipment.
Prior to the WWII / Korean Conflict eras the reserves were haphazardly equipped (if at all) because the expectation was that when activated these persons would be augmented into active units and these units would provide the necessary equipment to support the role of the new augmentee. Reserve units, with few exceptions, did not act as or train as stand alone units, they were more viewed as a "pool" of manpower from which to draw from and disseminate to the units that were already operational.
Of course today our reserve components are able to mobilize and function as there own stand alone units, but that is a modern organizational model.
Also,
Looking back in history you will find militia units that were "irregular" units. The irregular's were militia that basically showed up with whatever they had regarding clothing, firearms and perhaps maybe a horse for transportation. They were not afforded the common arms and stipends that some local governmental units provided (as discussed earlier). They were no less brave, or instrumental in bringing the fight to the enemy, they just did so at a disadvantage since they lacked equipment commonality.
It was the disadvantage stemming from a lack of equipment commonality that the Founding Fathers recognized and why they included the "well regulated" language in the 2nd. It was to encourage the private ownership of the then common military pattern firearms, to better equip those who may be called upon to protect our country or to fight tyranny that could possibly rise up in the future.
The meaning of the 2A, and it's value to the common good, is no different today as then. The vast and broad ownership of AR pattern firearms we see today continues to support the common good, stabilizes society which strengthens our culture, and reduces violent crime and sociopathic antics that will undoubtedly increase in frequency if this type of firearm ownership is curtailed in the future.
Have you ever heard a phrase like "He's REGULAR Army."? The term regular (stemming from the archaic use of regulated) referred to active duty personnel delineating them from the reserve components. Regular army meant he was serving, wearing the uniform, and was GI (government issue) in his equipment.
Prior to the WWII / Korean Conflict eras the reserves were haphazardly equipped (if at all) because the expectation was that when activated these persons would be augmented into active units and these units would provide the necessary equipment to support the role of the new augmentee. Reserve units, with few exceptions, did not act as or train as stand alone units, they were more viewed as a "pool" of manpower from which to draw from and disseminate to the units that were already operational.
Of course today our reserve components are able to mobilize and function as there own stand alone units, but that is a modern organizational model.
Also,
Looking back in history you will find militia units that were "irregular" units. The irregular's were militia that basically showed up with whatever they had regarding clothing, firearms and perhaps maybe a horse for transportation. They were not afforded the common arms and stipends that some local governmental units provided (as discussed earlier). They were no less brave, or instrumental in bringing the fight to the enemy, they just did so at a disadvantage since they lacked equipment commonality.
It was the disadvantage stemming from a lack of equipment commonality that the Founding Fathers recognized and why they included the "well regulated" language in the 2nd. It was to encourage the private ownership of the then common military pattern firearms, to better equip those who may be called upon to protect our country or to fight tyranny that could possibly rise up in the future.
The meaning of the 2A, and it's value to the common good, is no different today as then. The vast and broad ownership of AR pattern firearms we see today continues to support the common good, stabilizes society which strengthens our culture, and reduces violent crime and sociopathic antics that will undoubtedly increase in frequency if this type of firearm ownership is curtailed in the future.
- Messages
- 14,015
- Reactions
- 57,153
You stallion.....
- Messages
- 14,015
- Reactions
- 57,153
I'd write the 2A like this:
Since politicians and their puppeteers are inherently crooked, the individual right to own, carry, and use direct weapons may not be impaired in any way, in the event the aforementioned politicians or puppeteers need killing to preserve freedom.
Oh, and this:
28th Amendment:
For the purpose of reminding politicians they work for the people and the people are serious about their freedom, one politician will be selected, at random, per year from each state as a sacrifice to liberty. This means they die publicly. They will be selected by lottery. Each term of service will result in one entry for selection with an additional entry for each subsequent term of office, with no limit on terms or entries.
OR
A politician may elect to serve no more than two (2) terms in a particular office during their lifetime, rendering them exempt from selection for sacrifice.
Since politicians and their puppeteers are inherently crooked, the individual right to own, carry, and use direct weapons may not be impaired in any way, in the event the aforementioned politicians or puppeteers need killing to preserve freedom.
Oh, and this:
28th Amendment:
For the purpose of reminding politicians they work for the people and the people are serious about their freedom, one politician will be selected, at random, per year from each state as a sacrifice to liberty. This means they die publicly. They will be selected by lottery. Each term of service will result in one entry for selection with an additional entry for each subsequent term of office, with no limit on terms or entries.
OR
A politician may elect to serve no more than two (2) terms in a particular office during their lifetime, rendering them exempt from selection for sacrifice.
- Messages
- 366
- Reactions
- 782
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.
Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not the intent of the 2nd amendment.
It was to render the government powerless to do so.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, both before and after the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city
Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not the intent of the 2nd amendment.
It was to render the government powerless to do so.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, both before and after the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city
Last Edited:
Shall not be infringed unless you want to fire larger than .50 caliber projectiles, have a self repeating mechanism, shorter than arbitrary barrel barrel length, protect your hearing, conceal your property on your person and (a recent one to me) have a really, really long pistol
- Messages
- 5,631
- Reactions
- 12,031
Judge Napolitano states that "regulate" means to make regular. That indicates a consistency and perhaps an acceleration if need be.
Look at 2020. Needs certaibly be...
Look at 2020. Needs certaibly be...
- Messages
- 16,821
- Reactions
- 27,628
For SOME.
Constitution = what's that?
Oh wait......some may recall how the 2nd A was taught in school?
Rrrrrright......
It had to do with hunting firearms.
It had to do with only black powder single-shot firearms that were available way back when.
It had to do with only the National Guard.
Some might even argue that TODAY it says something like.......
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, unless I say it's reasonable.
BUT, it doesn't. It says what it says.
SO THEN......
Beware of the......I believe in "Reasonable and common sense" gun laws and/or those who say they believe in "compromise" positions.
Reasonable and common sense sounds like an easy concept. Rrrrrright?
Until you ask.....who gets to define it?
"I'm a reasonable politician and have common sense. But, since you don't agree with me. It's because you don't have reason or common sense. Therefore, your thoughts and ideas can be dismissed without further discussion. Next."
As for compromise. Well, think about it.....
IMHO......
Aloha, Mark
PS.....more directly to your initial question. Please, READ the above posts and GET UP TO SPEED.
Constitution = what's that?
Oh wait......some may recall how the 2nd A was taught in school?
Rrrrrright......
It had to do with hunting firearms.
It had to do with only black powder single-shot firearms that were available way back when.
It had to do with only the National Guard.
Some might even argue that TODAY it says something like.......
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, unless I say it's reasonable.
BUT, it doesn't. It says what it says.
SO THEN......
Beware of the......I believe in "Reasonable and common sense" gun laws and/or those who say they believe in "compromise" positions.
Reasonable and common sense sounds like an easy concept. Rrrrrright?
Until you ask.....who gets to define it?
"I'm a reasonable politician and have common sense. But, since you don't agree with me. It's because you don't have reason or common sense. Therefore, your thoughts and ideas can be dismissed without further discussion. Next."
As for compromise. Well, think about it.....
IMHO......
Aloha, Mark
PS.....more directly to your initial question. Please, READ the above posts and GET UP TO SPEED.
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 372
- Reactions
- 840
I submit:
The last fourteen words are the only ones that matter.
It is a mistake to parse the meaning of nearly irrelevant terminology. Leftists want to focus on "well regulated" or "militia" or because such focus shifts attention away from obvious historical truths.
When citing history, wrong information undermines standing, fatally so when you are arguing with people who have no interest in elucidating truth, but rather just want to key on any little error to make you look bad.
Militia laws and enforcement of same varied considerably by time, geography, and threat level.
The "local governing bodies" almost never "provided arms for all the males of a certain age excluding conscientious objectors."
All is a big word.
It was rare for a "town" to have enough muskets to supply 80% of the men on its militia rolls. Usually the percentage was much smaller.
When governing bodies sometimes paid bounties to men who brought their own gun to muster, the number of men bringing their own guns to muster increased dramatically.
"Town" had a different meaning in 18th century American than it has now.
Etc.
The Constitution was not "delayed while the States wrestled with the Bill Of Rights".
The Constitution was ratified in 1788.
The 1st U.S. Congress convened in 1789 and was forced by necessity to address demands from 8 states for amendments that either protected civil rights, or state powers, or both.
Congress approved 12 amendments in 1789.
Ten were ratified by a ninth state in 1791.
Simple truths:
Virginia Company landed April 26, 1607 and shot a pistol at attacking Indians literally the first time they stepped off the boat.
The colonists always normally and regularly owned and used firearms for militia and non-militia purposes. Everyone had guns. The population became 95% rural. People chose frontier expansion over town life because they valued the reward of land ownership more than they feared the risk of death at the hands of "savages". The people did not expand the frontier unarmed. Everyone had guns. Guns were everywhere for 168 years before the Revolutionary War.
The Indians had lots of guns, thanks to the fur trade, and also to imperialist nations who enticed Indians to fight for their side by giving them guns.
America was a mess after the Treaty of Paris (1783): weak government, large war debt, no tax base, no national defense, surrounded by Indian and imperialist threats, states sometimes fighting each other over land, etc.
States sent delegates to the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 to amend the Articles of Confederation to make the national govt stronger so that it could deal with 'national' problems.
Without telling anyone, the Philadelphia delegates threw out the Articles and made up a completely new system of stronger federal government. The new Constitution was sent to the states for ratification.
The people didn't like it: they distrusted distant govt (centralized federal govt was considered distant in those days because travel and mail was really slow), and resented taxation, and feared standing armies.
Public debate was intense in 1788. The Federalist Papers exist because Hamilton, Jay, and Madison felt the need to build public support for the new govt by offsetting the Anti-Federalist anti-new-Constitution rhetoric of the governor of New York and his allies.
The states ratified the new Constitution in 1788 but demanded amendments (described above).
The 1st U.S. Congress convened in 1789.
Virginia sent a letter asking Congress to call a new constitutional convention so that state delegates could get together and come up with their own list of amendments.
Congress didn't want to call a convention, but if 8 other states made the same request as Virginia, they would have no choice.
Congress didn't want another convention because the last convention had thrown out the whole govt, and Congress didn't want to risk that happening again.
Congress needed to ease public fears about the new government's taxation and military powers, by satisfying public demands for protections of citizen rights, without entertaining States' rights amendments that would weaken the new government and put the country right back where it was with the weak Articles of Confederation.
Madison proposed multiple changes to be inserted into the body of the Constitution.
Congress shrunk them down and chose to add them onto the end as amendments.
The overriding goal of these amendments was to calm the people and gain their support for the new govt.
Not piss off the people and invite rebellion.
This is how we know that 2A was not intended, and did not create, any restriction on the pre-existing and broadly exercised right of the people to own and use firearms for both militia and non-militia purposes. It's how we know that 2A did not intend to restrict the RKBA only to govt-controlled militia service.
If Congress had actually proposed such a new restriction on the people's pre-existing and broadly exercised right to arms, at a minimum the people and states would have immediately rejected the amendment, but it is more likely that they would have abandoned the new govt completely and called a convention.
Nearly 2/3 of the 1st U.S. Congress either served in the military during the Revolutionary War, or signed the Declaration of Independence.
That body of men in America in 1789 would not have proposed a new and dramatic restriction on the people's right to arms, for two reasons:
1 - they themselves were armed revolutionary patriots,
2 - they wanted to save the new govt, not invite its destruction by inflaming an already agitated people.
Even if the 1st U.S. Congress had been stupid enough to attempt a militia restriction on the people's right to arms, the people would not have ratified it.
There is no way that the authors or ratifiers of 2A intended to restrict the RKBA only to govt-controlled militia service. No. Way.
Which only leaves one other possible way to read it: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period.
The prefatory clause (well regulated militia) acknowledges the militia as the traditional source of military power when needed and also as the public bulwark against military oppression by a govt empowered to raise its own army, but does not create any restriction applicable to the specific protection created by the operating clause.
Any argument over the meaning of words in the prefatory clause is irrelevant to establishing the meaning of the amendment.
In short, when arguing...
Don't go where "they" want to go.
Take them straight to where they don't want to go. The historically supportable truth.
PS - Recommendation for future humans: when you write a Constitution, take nothing for granted and spell everything out in excruciating detail. Our founders never dreamed that Americans would be as stupid as they are now, so they never dreamed that they would need to spell things out more clearly than they did, so they didn't, which causes us no end of headaches today.
Still. Not bad for the first ever system of govt designed entirely to protect human freedom and equality. First ever. In human history.
The last fourteen words are the only ones that matter.
It is a mistake to parse the meaning of nearly irrelevant terminology. Leftists want to focus on "well regulated" or "militia" or because such focus shifts attention away from obvious historical truths.
When citing history, wrong information undermines standing, fatally so when you are arguing with people who have no interest in elucidating truth, but rather just want to key on any little error to make you look bad.
Militia laws and enforcement of same varied considerably by time, geography, and threat level.
The "local governing bodies" almost never "provided arms for all the males of a certain age excluding conscientious objectors."
All is a big word.
It was rare for a "town" to have enough muskets to supply 80% of the men on its militia rolls. Usually the percentage was much smaller.
When governing bodies sometimes paid bounties to men who brought their own gun to muster, the number of men bringing their own guns to muster increased dramatically.
"Town" had a different meaning in 18th century American than it has now.
Etc.
The Constitution was not "delayed while the States wrestled with the Bill Of Rights".
The Constitution was ratified in 1788.
The 1st U.S. Congress convened in 1789 and was forced by necessity to address demands from 8 states for amendments that either protected civil rights, or state powers, or both.
Congress approved 12 amendments in 1789.
Ten were ratified by a ninth state in 1791.
Simple truths:
Virginia Company landed April 26, 1607 and shot a pistol at attacking Indians literally the first time they stepped off the boat.
The colonists always normally and regularly owned and used firearms for militia and non-militia purposes. Everyone had guns. The population became 95% rural. People chose frontier expansion over town life because they valued the reward of land ownership more than they feared the risk of death at the hands of "savages". The people did not expand the frontier unarmed. Everyone had guns. Guns were everywhere for 168 years before the Revolutionary War.
The Indians had lots of guns, thanks to the fur trade, and also to imperialist nations who enticed Indians to fight for their side by giving them guns.
America was a mess after the Treaty of Paris (1783): weak government, large war debt, no tax base, no national defense, surrounded by Indian and imperialist threats, states sometimes fighting each other over land, etc.
States sent delegates to the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 to amend the Articles of Confederation to make the national govt stronger so that it could deal with 'national' problems.
Without telling anyone, the Philadelphia delegates threw out the Articles and made up a completely new system of stronger federal government. The new Constitution was sent to the states for ratification.
The people didn't like it: they distrusted distant govt (centralized federal govt was considered distant in those days because travel and mail was really slow), and resented taxation, and feared standing armies.
Public debate was intense in 1788. The Federalist Papers exist because Hamilton, Jay, and Madison felt the need to build public support for the new govt by offsetting the Anti-Federalist anti-new-Constitution rhetoric of the governor of New York and his allies.
The states ratified the new Constitution in 1788 but demanded amendments (described above).
The 1st U.S. Congress convened in 1789.
Virginia sent a letter asking Congress to call a new constitutional convention so that state delegates could get together and come up with their own list of amendments.
Congress didn't want to call a convention, but if 8 other states made the same request as Virginia, they would have no choice.
Congress didn't want another convention because the last convention had thrown out the whole govt, and Congress didn't want to risk that happening again.
Congress needed to ease public fears about the new government's taxation and military powers, by satisfying public demands for protections of citizen rights, without entertaining States' rights amendments that would weaken the new government and put the country right back where it was with the weak Articles of Confederation.
Madison proposed multiple changes to be inserted into the body of the Constitution.
Congress shrunk them down and chose to add them onto the end as amendments.
The overriding goal of these amendments was to calm the people and gain their support for the new govt.
Not piss off the people and invite rebellion.
This is how we know that 2A was not intended, and did not create, any restriction on the pre-existing and broadly exercised right of the people to own and use firearms for both militia and non-militia purposes. It's how we know that 2A did not intend to restrict the RKBA only to govt-controlled militia service.
If Congress had actually proposed such a new restriction on the people's pre-existing and broadly exercised right to arms, at a minimum the people and states would have immediately rejected the amendment, but it is more likely that they would have abandoned the new govt completely and called a convention.
Nearly 2/3 of the 1st U.S. Congress either served in the military during the Revolutionary War, or signed the Declaration of Independence.
That body of men in America in 1789 would not have proposed a new and dramatic restriction on the people's right to arms, for two reasons:
1 - they themselves were armed revolutionary patriots,
2 - they wanted to save the new govt, not invite its destruction by inflaming an already agitated people.
Even if the 1st U.S. Congress had been stupid enough to attempt a militia restriction on the people's right to arms, the people would not have ratified it.
There is no way that the authors or ratifiers of 2A intended to restrict the RKBA only to govt-controlled militia service. No. Way.
Which only leaves one other possible way to read it: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period.
The prefatory clause (well regulated militia) acknowledges the militia as the traditional source of military power when needed and also as the public bulwark against military oppression by a govt empowered to raise its own army, but does not create any restriction applicable to the specific protection created by the operating clause.
Any argument over the meaning of words in the prefatory clause is irrelevant to establishing the meaning of the amendment.
In short, when arguing...
Don't go where "they" want to go.
Take them straight to where they don't want to go. The historically supportable truth.
PS - Recommendation for future humans: when you write a Constitution, take nothing for granted and spell everything out in excruciating detail. Our founders never dreamed that Americans would be as stupid as they are now, so they never dreamed that they would need to spell things out more clearly than they did, so they didn't, which causes us no end of headaches today.
Still. Not bad for the first ever system of govt designed entirely to protect human freedom and equality. First ever. In human history.
- Messages
- 283
- Reactions
- 366
I submit:
The last fourteen words are the only ones that matter.
It is a mistake to parse the meaning of nearly irrelevant terminology. Leftists want to focus on "well regulated" or "militia" or because such focus shifts attention away from obvious historical truths.
When citing history, wrong information undermines standing, fatally so when you are arguing with people who have no interest in elucidating truth, but rather just want to key on any little error to make you look bad.
Militia laws and enforcement of same varied considerably by time, geography, and threat level.
The "local governing bodies" almost never "provided arms for all the males of a certain age excluding conscientious objectors."
All is a big word.
It was rare for a "town" to have enough muskets to supply 80% of the men on its militia rolls. Usually the percentage was much smaller.
When governing bodies sometimes paid bounties to men who brought their own gun to muster, the number of men bringing their own guns to muster increased dramatically.
"Town" had a different meaning in 18th century American than it has now.
Etc.
The Constitution was not "delayed while the States wrestled with the Bill Of Rights".
The Constitution was ratified in 1788.
The 1st U.S. Congress convened in 1789 and was forced by necessity to address demands from 8 states for amendments that either protected civil rights, or state powers, or both.
Congress approved 12 amendments in 1789.
Ten were ratified by a ninth state in 1791.
Simple truths:
Virginia Company landed April 26, 1607 and shot a pistol at attacking Indians literally the first time they stepped off the boat.
The colonists always normally and regularly owned and used firearms for militia and non-militia purposes. Everyone had guns. The population became 95% rural. People chose frontier expansion over town life because they valued the reward of land ownership more than they feared the risk of death at the hands of "savages". The people did not expand the frontier unarmed. Everyone had guns. Guns were everywhere for 168 years before the Revolutionary War.
The Indians had lots of guns, thanks to the fur trade, and also to imperialist nations who enticed Indians to fight for their side by giving them guns.
America was a mess after the Treaty of Paris (1783): weak government, large war debt, no tax base, no national defense, surrounded by Indian and imperialist threats, states sometimes fighting each other over land, etc.
States sent delegates to the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 to amend the Articles of Confederation to make the national govt stronger so that it could deal with 'national' problems.
Without telling anyone, the Philadelphia delegates threw out the Articles and made up a completely new system of stronger federal government. The new Constitution was sent to the states for ratification.
The people didn't like it: they distrusted distant govt (centralized federal govt was considered distant in those days because travel and mail was really slow), and resented taxation, and feared standing armies.
Public debate was intense in 1788. The Federalist Papers exist because Hamilton, Jay, and Madison felt the need to build public support for the new govt by offsetting the Anti-Federalist anti-new-Constitution rhetoric of the governor of New York and his allies.
The states ratified the new Constitution in 1788 but demanded amendments (described above).
The 1st U.S. Congress convened in 1789.
Virginia sent a letter asking Congress to call a new constitutional convention so that state delegates could get together and come up with their own list of amendments.
Congress didn't want to call a convention, but if 8 other states made the same request as Virginia, they would have no choice.
Congress didn't want another convention because the last convention had thrown out the whole govt, and Congress didn't want to risk that happening again.
Congress needed to ease public fears about the new government's taxation and military powers, by satisfying public demands for protections of citizen rights, without entertaining States' rights amendments that would weaken the new government and put the country right back where it was with the weak Articles of Confederation.
Madison proposed multiple changes to be inserted into the body of the Constitution.
Congress shrunk them down and chose to add them onto the end as amendments.
The overriding goal of these amendments was to calm the people and gain their support for the new govt.
Not piss off the people and invite rebellion.
This is how we know that 2A was not intended, and did not create, any restriction on the pre-existing and broadly exercised right of the people to own and use firearms for both militia and non-militia purposes. It's how we know that 2A did not intend to restrict the RKBA only to govt-controlled militia service.
If Congress had actually proposed such a new restriction on the people's pre-existing and broadly exercised right to arms, at a minimum the people and states would have immediately rejected the amendment, but it is more likely that they would have abandoned the new govt completely and called a convention.
Nearly 2/3 of the 1st U.S. Congress either served in the military during the Revolutionary War, or signed the Declaration of Independence.
That body of men in America in 1789 would not have proposed a new and dramatic restriction on the people's right to arms, for two reasons:
1 - they themselves were armed revolutionary patriots,
2 - they wanted to save the new govt, not invite its destruction by inflaming an already agitated people.
Even if the 1st U.S. Congress had been stupid enough to attempt a militia restriction on the people's right to arms, the people would not have ratified it.
There is no way that the authors or ratifiers of 2A intended to restrict the RKBA only to govt-controlled militia service. No. Way.
Which only leaves one other possible way to read it: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period.
The prefatory clause (well regulated militia) acknowledges the militia as the traditional source of military power when needed and also as the public bulwark against military oppression by a govt empowered to raise its own army, but does not create any restriction applicable to the specific protection created by the operating clause.
Any argument over the meaning of words in the prefatory clause is irrelevant to establishing the meaning of the amendment.
In short, when arguing...
Don't go where "they" want to go.
Take them straight to where they don't want to go. The historically supportable truth.
PS - Recommendation for future humans: when you write a Constitution, take nothing for granted and spell everything out in excruciating detail. Our founders never dreamed that Americans would be as stupid as they are now, so they never dreamed that they would need to spell things out more clearly than they did, so they didn't, which causes us no end of headaches today.
Still. Not bad for the first ever system of govt designed entirely to protect human freedom and equality. First ever. In human history.
Bravo!! Great narrative!
But...
"The Constitution was not "delayed while the States wrestled with the Bill Of Rights".
The Constitution was ratified in 1788." Help me understand!
The Constitution was signed in 1787 and ratified in 1788! Wasn't the delay the argument about Federalist vs. Anti Federalist (Centralized Government Power Vs. States Rights) and Individual Rights like the 1A, 2A and 4A?
Smiles,
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 372
- Reactions
- 840
This is a dangerous position to take.
The Constitution is modeled in large part on assertions made by Montesquieu in his Spirit of Laws.
The phrase "well regulated" appears several times in the contemporary English translation of Montesquieu by Nugent.
Sometimes, Nugent translated the French for "well governed" or "well managed" to English "well regulated."
Examples:
Part 1, Book 8, Chapter 14
Part 2, Book 13, Chapter 18
Part 4, Book 21, Chapter 19
Free copies of Montesquieu and Nugent's translation are available online.
The examples I cited can be used to counter and probably outweigh the examples you cited, resulting in an inconclusive or even disadvantageous outcome to an argument that doesn't even need to be made, because it is irrelevant to determining the true meaning of 2A.
Knowledge of history makes the meaning of 2A obvious. As Scalia noted in Heller, the prefatory clause has no bearing on the meaning of the operating clause.
2 cents.
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
WTB Benelli 12ga ComforTech stock, for (pre-2023)M2. Other M2 parts wanted.
- Started by nforest
- Replies: 0
-
Trijicon Acog ta31 w/ rmr piggyback
- Started by roninthegrey
- Replies: 0
-
Mag Pack! 10pack - CZ-75 Compact/P-01/PCR 15 rounders- Started by HyenaHank
- Replies: 0
-