• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2A definition: "...well regulated Militia..."

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
The Second Amendment to the Constitution: "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."

Please focus on only the three words on bold. No thing else, no other part. What do they mean? Is their meaning clear, or open to interpretation?

Is a militia the people in general, or is it a state-sponsored organized and approved government body? Does the fact that "Militia" is capitalized lean toward an organized government body (as a formal name, essentially), or is that irrelevant? Maybe just grammatical peculiarities of the day.

If you believe their meaning is clear, why do many people have other definitions? Are they being dishonest and/or insincere?

Thoughts?
 

Militia is the term used for a defense force comprised of ordinary citizens and well regulated means trained and equipped. What is equally important, in the context of the 2A, is whether the people refers to only those people currently (or likely to be) engaged in militia activities.
 
It is obviously open to interpretation seeing as how millions of people interpret it differently from each other. I always found the sentence structure clumsy. Militia, State and Arms are all capitalized. Each of those words is each followed by a comma. I don't know why.
 
"We the People" are the government. The Militia is us.
 

This is a well sourced write up.
It basically means a trained/disciplined group of citizen soldiers.
The militia being, the whole people.

The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

People have different opinions for political motives and/or they really believe it.
It's not an all or none thing.
 
Somebody gave me this sentence one time:

"A good night's sleep, being necessary to the health of a body, the right of the people to keep and use beds, shall not be infringed."

Does that sentence mean I can only use a bed to sleep at night? Can I use it to take a nap? Can I just lay on it to watch TV?
 
I'm going to change my name to "SkepticDog" and steal your avatar. :mrgreen:
 
My thoughts.

I believe that it is intended to mean all the people, collectively and/or individually. That is my interpretation.

However, I do know people who believe it means the government's military, and I know these people personally and I also know them to be absolutely sincere in their beliefs. They claim that the words "well regulated" means government sponsored and approved, because, well, who else would 'regulate'?

I wholly disagree with them, but I do not question the sincerity of their position.
 

The pretext is giving reason why, the right to keep and use beds, shall not be infringed.
 

well regulated militia means = a well organized militia not a rabble of men throw together - this can be found by reading the founders

in the constitution of the founders, the federal government has the power to create uniformity among the militias of the states, HOWEVER, it is not executed by the federal government but by the state governments themselves.
 

I think their "sincerity" is motivated by their political lean. If they think it means what it means, how was this enforced way back then? Did the government confiscate guns? Or say that it was illegal to own one?

That would tell you right there... easily. If you have confusion on what someone wrote... then go and see how that person enforced what they wrote....
 

It's not really hard to validate that the second amendment is meant as an individual right.
The lay out of the bill of rights, they being individual rights, except for the 2nd one, wouldn't make any sense.

Then you have the history of what a militia is, in the context of England and the UK.
They being tenant farmer, free land holders, etc who were obligated to serve the king.
This goes back to at least the Norman Conquest.

I think politicians who argue against it, know, they just pretend to not know.
While their supporters are a mixed bag of sincere and not so sincere people.
 
Easy enough and not hard to find the meaning or intent as written by those that penned it.
Start with Washington.
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

Then look to Madison...

"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

Lee...
“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

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"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."

SO...in their own words...a 'well regulated' militia especially as formed during the time the Constitution was written, consisted of an in place community command structure and citizens well trained and well practiced in the use of firearms meant to to be available to be called up in a time of need to defend the State.

The intent was that the people of this country have access to military grade firearms any militiaman might be expected to carry into battle to preserve the free state.

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
 

You can't own a bed at all unless you take a course, pass a test and pay a fee to get a state bed license! This is freedom based on the important mission of the state to be well funded. If that bed is later deemed "high capacity" (sleeps more than one) then it may be banned outright and you can be jailed for merely keeping it in your home.
 

We don't know........because the guys that wrote it are dead.

This book is helpful in understanding Militias. One must look at them in the context of their day. They were comprised of ordinary people who banded together spontaneously to fight oppression by wealthy landowners and the government.......sometimes facing off against government troops.

https://www.amazon.com/Peoples-Hist...680968&sr=8-1&keywords=peoples+history+of+u.s.
 

Try English. :roll:
 

Justice Scalia already devoted many paragraphs and scholarly footnotes to that question in D.C. v. Heller. I agree with his analysis. I suppose a particular person might disagree with Scalia's interpretation of what those words mean for any number of reasons. But I think the most common reason, based on what I have seen, is a simple lack of knowledge and reasoning ability, combined with an irrational dislike of firearms. Many times on forums like these, I have seen people railing bitterly against Heller, even though their comments make clear they have never read the case and suggest they could not understand it if they tried.
 
I think this is a good point, as at that point in time, most private citizens were allowed, and did own, all the same weapons the military
possessed, including cannon and armed ships.
 

You don't need a high capacity bed.

 

In the context of the statement they are fluff and filler.
 
longview said:
I think this is a good point, as at that point in time, most private citizens were allowed, and did own, all the same weapons the military
possessed, including cannon and armed ships.
Click to expand...

You can also you at the inspirations of the bill of rights, to get an insight on what they mean.... if one is not sure. For example.... The Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights and Constitution is even more clear...
Part 2
XIII.
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not be kept up: And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

^ there is no question, with absolute certainty... that the Pennsylvania constitution establishes a right to bear arms for personal defense for all citizens.
 
PirateMk1 said:
In the context of the statement they are fluff and filler.
Click to expand...
I disagree. To me...those three words give VERY CLEAR INTENT as to the type and purpose of weapons declared as the right of the people to keep and bear.
 
longview said:
I think this is a good point, as at that point in time, most private citizens were allowed, and did own, all the same weapons the military
possessed, including cannon and armed ships.
Click to expand...

Justice Scalia held that it had to be arms you can "bear" (meaning "carry").

However.......early militias that faced off against Federal troops DID possess cannon.
 
Vox said:
Justice Scalia held that it had to be arms you can "bear" (meaning "carry").

However.......early militias that faced off against Federal troops DID possess cannon.
Click to expand...
There were many cases of individuals who did own every weapon available to the military at the time.
As was pointed out in post #13
 
longview said:
There were many cases of individuals who did own every weapon available to the military at the time.
As was pointed out in post #13
Click to expand...

Obviously, Scalia would disagree that they had that as a Constitutional right. It could even be that he held that opinion because those Militias were pre-Constitution or shortly post-Constitution before the law was settled.

But he's dead too, so we can't ask him either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…