4 ms·

"Well regulated"

• bbradley406 10y ago
  Misconstruing the phrasing of the amendment is a weak way to argue against it. At the time it was written, "well regulated" was commonly used to describe something that worked well, was in good repair, etc. A militia being "well regulated" (in modern English) by the government that it might need to fight is the opposite of that. http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
• tracker1 10y ago
  Militia Act, not the article... if you look at the militia act, it specifically states that every able bodied male of age is part of said militia, and to provide their own arms. And you also miss the phrase "In order to" as in for example... it was only one of the reasons why the right to bear arms should not be infringed, not the only one. The bill of rights was at the time argued as superfluous as some felt that most people understood that those were inalienable rights and didn't need to be spelled out. Others felt otherwise (with foresight) and wanted stronger provisions, many of which were in the original Articles of Confederation the country was founded under before the Constitution.