5 ms·

To note, "well-regulated" had a different meaning when the Bill of Rights was authored than what a contemporary reader may interpret the term to mean. Some cont

To note, "well-regulated" had a different meaning when the Bill of Rights was authored than what a contemporary reader may interpret the term to mean. Some context is available here[1]. [1] http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

simonh 9y ago
That just leaves the question of what a well regulated militia in this sense is, how it being well regulated is determined, etc open to legitimate further legislation. To put it another way, is there constitutional justification for citizens to bear arms for purposes which have nothing to do with a well regulated militia? If so the well regulayed militia qualification has no meaning, right? So what's it there for? Just curious, fair disclosure I'm a Brit so I have no standing in this.
- bitJericho 9y ago
  Yes. The second amendment is using the comma as an "and". It means that we have the right to both a well regulated militia and for the citizenry to own and bear arms. It is not for the purposes of conscripting the citizenry into some militia. It is intended for the citizenry to defend themselves, against tyrants and assailants. If the second amendment was just about having a well regulated militia, then they would not have mentioned the second part about citizens bearing arms.
  - vacri 9y ago
    The comma is "just an 'and'"? > A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's a garbage sentence. Also, there isn't a 'first part' and a 'second part', because "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is not a complete sentence.
    - bitJericho 9y ago
      The sentence means this: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed. The comma acts as an "and", to combine two different but similar rights
      - eswoo 9y ago
        But how do you infringe on a militia? Only one right is actually mentioned here; nothing is said about a right to a militia.
- KekDemaga 9y ago
  American here. I just don't understand the line of reasoning used above you. >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. If the intent is only a well regulated militia is to own arms why does it specifically call out the people in that way? Isn't "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" the justification for "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."? Its worded very oddly, if the intent actually was "the right of the government to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." why not say that? Also, if the intent is to allow only governmental actors to own arms why does that right have to be specifically called out? The purpose of the constitution was to protect the people from government over reach has there ever been a nation where a totalitarian regime prevented his own army and police from having guns against the wishes of his people?
vacri 9y ago
And that meaning of 'well-regulated' is also missing from the armed citizens of today. 'Well-regulated' did not mean the chaos of every-man-for-himself and zero oversight. Not to mention that the definition of 'militia' as 'all adult men' came from the 1900s, not the 1780s.

simonh 9y ago

That just leaves the question of what a well regulated militia in this sense is, how it being well regulated is determined, etc open to legitimate further legislation. To put it another way, is there constitutional justification for citizens to bear arms for purposes which have nothing to do with a well regulated militia? If so the well regulayed militia qualification has no meaning, right? So what's it there for? Just curious, fair disclosure I'm a Brit so I have no standing in this.

bitJericho 9y ago
Yes. The second amendment is using the comma as an "and". It means that we have the right to both a well regulated militia and for the citizenry to own and bear arms. It is not for the purposes of conscripting the citizenry into some militia. It is intended for the citizenry to defend themselves, against tyrants and assailants. If the second amendment was just about having a well regulated militia, then they would not have mentioned the second part about citizens bearing arms.
- vacri 9y ago
  The comma is "just an 'and'"? > A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's a garbage sentence. Also, there isn't a 'first part' and a 'second part', because "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is not a complete sentence.
  - bitJericho 9y ago
    The sentence means this: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed. The comma acts as an "and", to combine two different but similar rights
    - eswoo 9y ago
      But how do you infringe on a militia? Only one right is actually mentioned here; nothing is said about a right to a militia.
KekDemaga 9y ago
American here. I just don't understand the line of reasoning used above you. >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. If the intent is only a well regulated militia is to own arms why does it specifically call out the people in that way? Isn't "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" the justification for "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."? Its worded very oddly, if the intent actually was "the right of the government to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." why not say that? Also, if the intent is to allow only governmental actors to own arms why does that right have to be specifically called out? The purpose of the constitution was to protect the people from government over reach has there ever been a nation where a totalitarian regime prevented his own army and police from having guns against the wishes of his people?

vacri 9y ago

And that meaning of 'well-regulated' is also missing from the armed citizens of today. 'Well-regulated' did not mean the chaos of every-man-for-himself and zero oversight. Not to mention that the definition of 'militia' as 'all adult men' came from the 1900s, not the 1780s.