What do the words "A well regulated Militia" in the 2nd amd mean to you?

If you knew didly squat about American history you would know that every able bodied person within what used to be the "free states" was a member of the militia.
You probably think well regulated means subject to extensive government regulations, It does not. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.
It is not your fault you are under educated, you have been the victim of the liberal government education system.

 

Nothing inconvenient about those words. They mean what they say. The amendment uses the term to explain the motivation for declaring the right to carry arms. It doesn't limit that right to militia members. Many thinking people view those words to suggest the right of people to protect themselves from a government gone haywire. Your interpretation may vary.

 

You

No it does not. Every able bodied person is a member of the militia to this day.

 

No that is not correct, it means in order for the militia to function they must have arms. Well regulated meant to function properly in that time. It did not mean to be under government regulation.

 

Yes they did, the problem is that you are ignorant of the meaning of their words. Do some research.
A well regulated means to properly function. So in order for the country to have a properly functioning militia, it is necessary for the rights of the citizens to bear arms not be infringed.

This is as true today as it was then. For example, suppose we were attacked and most military bases were destroyed, and we were then invaded. Our survival as a country would depend on citizens prosecuting a gorilla war much the same as the Revolutionary war. To those who would argue that it is not possible for a rag tag militia of citizens to hold off a proper army, I suggest you study Viet Nam.

So in fact, the gun grabbers are not only attempting to deny the rights of the Citizens of the United States, they are trying to eliminate our last line of defense which could easily be construed as being traitorous.

So now that we have all been educated, we now know that Liberals are supporting factions who are attempting to disarm and overthrow America.

 

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

* * *

So there you have it folks, we the people are the militia.

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers

 

A well regulated militia is essentially a military force composed of citizens. The national guard is part of the military and therefore absolutely not part of the militia.

Nobody is ignoring this. A militia only exists when it's necessary for them to enter combat. In times of peace in the Homeland they are just ordinary citizens. Not enlisted military personnel.
Nobody is ignoring it, you are just misunderstanding it.

Further I think you are ignoring the second line of the amendment.

"The the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It specifically mentions the right of the people. It doesn't mention that it's a privilege if you serve in the military.

So you are ignoring who's right it is.

They aren't. You misunderstand them. The militia isn't the national military. It's make up of ordinary citizens that's why the right is for the people.

Do you know why a militia is necessary for a free state? It's so they can organize and fight the military if they need to. It's necessary for a state to be free from a national government that becomes oppressive.

That's why the right is for the people not the military.

 

As said, "Well Regulated Militia" means functioning properly or "in order to have a properly functioning militia". A militia won't function if you have to wait for weapons from the government and teach the militia members how to use them. And by "arms", I interpret that as any discriminate weapon that can be carried by a soldier. I can see limiting grenades, explosives, and maybe full auto rifles, but semi auto, high capacity rifles are necessary to protect the people from an oppressive government, foreign or domestic. Full auto is just a waste of ammo in most cases. I wouldn't ban it, but it's not something I would fret over.

For the record, I have served in AD USAF and in the Texas Air National Guard.

My interpretation:

In order to have a properly functioning militia for the defense of a free state, the rights of all adult citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I do think 2A rights can be removed or limited due to confirmed insanity, incompetence due to substance abuse or disability, or felony convictions. I listed substance abuse separately because it may not be a crime in some places.

As I understand it, the unofficial militia is comprised of all males between the ages of 17 and 45, and any former member of the US military or national guard until age 60.

 

We had a Continental Navy formed in 1775. The Constitution was ratified in 1787. Congress created the Department of the Navy in 1798.

 

You think incorrectly. The militia is made up of civilians not military

 

The well regulated bit comes from understanding that a trained and similarly equipped army was much more dangerous than a bunch of drunk guys armed with whatever they could get their hands on. The Romans are the most obvious example of this. A regiment of men would have gone through the same training, be equipped with the same weapons, and knew exactly what to do when the SHTF. The generals would be able to look at a map of the battlefield, and see a marker that meant 100 men each with a standard Roman spear, the same shield, and would know how a phalanx works, or how to use their shields to create a hopefully impenetrable wall against the enemy.

Hamilton explains it in more detail here...

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

 

You're correct, except it gets kinda confusing at times. A militia is a group of armed men who are civilians, but what is the distinction between a group of armed men who are civilians and a group of armed men who are combatants?

Then we get into even murkier waters when talking about non-combatants. A civilian can be an armed combatant, but a member of the military can be a non-combatant.

 

In their precisely chosen words, what did the Founding Fathers mean when they specifiied the context, not only of a "militia" but a "well regulated" one?

What was that well regulation they envisioned?

 

"well regulated" is the same as saying well equipped. Think of it like regulation boots, helmets, and guns. Modern armies are equipped with regulation equipment. The idea was that militias be similarly equipped, so they could fight in order to maintain their freedom. The idea of bakers and farmers running around trained and armed has not always been favorably looked upon by rulers, and it was quite possible that this new federal government might want to become so powerful that it would be able to enslave the various states.

Another way to think about it is US v. Miller, which made it "legal" for the united states to declare sawed off shotguns as not applicable to the 2nd amendment because sawed off shotguns are not weapons carried by the military. They basically said that because the military doesn't issue sawed off shotguns to soldiers, then it is not regulation.

 

NO it does not. Your post is incorrect. Your interpretation of the meaning of the word does not even make sense. There was no one regulating militias at the time. The phrase does not even make sense with your interpretation. With the correct interpretation, the phrase makes perfect sense, and provides the reasoning for the right to never be infringed.
The meaning of the word is clearly to mean "in order to function properly" which is the definition prescribed in dictionaries of the time.

 

Fair point. But the militia is there to present an overwhelming Force should the need arise.

 

I would simply point you to the link I provided. It probably explains it better than I did. If you still disagree, well... can't help you.

Or maybe this quote from federalist 29 might help.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for 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, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.''

Yes, you would assume that guns will work, but the rationale for a well regulated militia is that not only for the guns to work, but that a militia be a uniform organization.

 

The link was written by someone who has no more knowledge of the subject than you do. The meaning of the words is clear, and backed by the dictionaries of the time. You really do not have a case.

 

What it means to us as individuals is completely irrelevant...

What is relevant is what it meant at the time.
What it meant at the time was every able bodied man between the ages of 18 and 45.

 

Others have pointed out that "militia" means everyone capable of mounting a defense, not a national guard, not army reserves, everyone. The term exists to distinguish between a professional, paid town guard and unpaid defending civilians. Cities/keeps/castles/towns would have a few or many town guard and the rest of the able-bodies comprised the militia. It is that simple and not at all historically debatable or controversial. It is the height of vapidity for the LW to keep trying to seize on the term "militia" and conflate it with a professional military because the terms have the same root.

But it's also worth pointing out that "well-regulated" in the 2A doesn't mean what "regulated" means today. That definition of "regulation" as government control didn't exist when the 2A was drafted.

"Regulated" in military history means "equipped and supplied," not "controlled," control was presumed. The term refers to both the actual equipment itself and the supply lines that support any military action or town defense.

"Well regulated militia" means a well-equipped and supplied group of whatever townspeople are capable of defense.

And they don't mean that "to me" any more than the definition of "circle" could mean something "to me" different than others. THEY SIMPLY MEAN THAT.

 

It's not what they mean to me. That clause has no effect on the rest of the meaning of the text. It's just an explanatory clause that helps put things in context, helping to affirm that it was/is the proper role for states to maintain their own militias, for the defense of their own state.

From one perspective, the Second Amendment was even more about (individual) state's rights than it was about the individual.

It was just there so that no one in the future could say state's don't have any business maintaining a militia. At the time, the word militia was synonymous with state-controlled militia. You can see reference to this in another part of the Constitution as well.

The Constitution makes it clear the militias are subordinate to Congress and the President, but states can have them. In modern times the concept has lost popularity, so few people these days other than historians understand what it is talking about.
WA state, for example, even has a clause in their original Constitution (1889 ) prohibiting private militias not associated with the state.
It gives one some pretty good idea that this was not considered in any way to conflict with the US Second Amendment at the time.

 

It makes absolutely no sense in the context of the sentence. Do you deny that the word "regulated" at that period of time had the definition of "properly functioning"? In addition you seem to have a problem understanding that the militia is every able bodied citizen. That does not mean people already incorporated into the army, it means the citizens who can be called upon to serve if necessary. When you combine the two, your position is indefensible.

 

lol! Well, admittedly the founders didn't exactly see eye-to-eye on things. There was as much disagreement between politicians then as there are now.

Still, the federalist papers were published to provide reasons for why the constitution was worded as it is, and this by contemporaries who were part of the process of writing the constitution.

 

No, I've already conceded that the guns should work. However, "properly functioning" is a bit ambiguous. Regular did mean that it works, as in my bowel movements have been quite regular lately. It also meant that militias would work, and 29 explains exactly why the well regulated part is included. They work most effectively when everybody is on the same page, and you know the guy holding the musket next to you has some vague knowledge of what's expected of him when the bullets are flying.

Did the militia mean every able bodied citizen? There's a big difference between able bodied and my neighbor who certainly is a citizen, but I wouldn't trust him to know how to aim a rifle in the general vicinity of the enemy. So how do we get from citizen to able bodied citizen?

 

Until I could stand it no longer I was listening to Trump's speech today on Fox News. Some call it a news conference because reporters are present and on rare occasions they actually get to ask a softball question.

Typically, a reporter allowed by Trump asks an innocuous question allowed by Trump, and Trump launches himself into a litany of lies, leaping from one subject to the next.

It is almost psychotic as he distorts one issue after another. Hence my inability to listen to him as he drones on.

Here is what is interesting. From time to time I have been known to initiate threads critical of Trump. For the most part his fans are unable to defend Trump. Therein lies the interesting part. Even Trump's supporters are smart enough not to use statements made by Trump to defend Trump.

As of August 12, Trump has made over 12,000 lies. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...as-made-false-or-misleading-claims-over-days/

Americans can't trust a damn thing he says, and even his supporters know this.

Nobody is going to take your guns away from you. That is a Trump myth and there are some here who believe it. Far more important is what Trump does and says.

But Trump's fans try hard to stay away from Trump.