3 ms·

The phrase “well-regulated” is part of “well-regulated militia,” and means orderly or disciplined, in the same manner a regulator in electronics keeps current m

The phrase “well-regulated” is part of “well-regulated militia,” and means orderly or disciplined, in the same manner a regulator in electronics keeps current managed or a regulator in mechanics keeps spin precise. It does not mean government regulation, and does not apply to the individual portion of the Amendment. It’s only recently that people claim regulated means government regulated instead of how the term was used when written, as clearly explained in writings of the times. Note that 45 or so states, modeling their constitutions after the Federal one, and not misrepresenting this phrase as you do, also include personal right to bear arms. This is further evidence of how the term you misrepresent and selectively misquote is meant. That you have to spin it against the original meaning as written by Founding Fathers in the Federalist papers, as detailed in Congressional Research Reports, as evidenced in numerous State, Federal, and recent Supreme Court cases, shows the absurdity of this misrepresentation. If you're honestly interested, here [1] is the text of a study commissioned from the 97th Congress on the topic, with plenty of historical citations on the meaning of the terms you selectively misquoted. It gives the history of how the term came to be in the constitution from common law, clearly showing they did not use it as you claim. [1] https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/68101 https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/CommitteeM...

acdha 7y ago
Which CRS report are you referring to? I’m assuming not the one which recognizes that as a modern development: “Before the Supreme Court’s 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, the right generally had been understood by federal courts to be intertwined with military or militia use.” https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44618.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44618.pdf
- ChrisLomont 7y ago
  The next sentence after the one you quoted: " Still, there had been ample debate in the lower federal courts and political discussion over whether the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms, versus a collective right belonging to the states to maintain militias." It's also the meaning more clearly laid out in the 45+ states constitutions explicitly naming a personal right, since they modeled their Constitutions after the Federal one. The distinction between the two is a very modern dichotomy. And I listed the text of the CRS report above. Wikipedia has a decent summary of US legal cases [1]. Note the Supremes ruled it was individual in 1939 according to this summary. Here's a summary of state Constitutions [2]. Note how many explicitly give personal, mot militia, rights to bear arms. These are modeled after the meaning of the Federal Constitution as those states saw it when adopting their Constitutions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in... [2] http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
  - acdha 7y ago
    Yes, especially the next sentence you didn’t include: > Pre-Heller, the vast majority of lower federal courts had embraced the collective right theory. Similarly, it would be useful if you discussed the reasons why the founders chose not to include any of the proposed individual rights language in the second amendment draft. It was a deliberate choice not to and there’s plenty of historical context available.
    - ChrisLomont 7y ago
      All of the Bill of Rights are individual rights, crafted to address complaints of the states about individual protections, most notably by the Anti-Federalists. If, as you claim, there was not individual rights in previous drafts, it would be useful if you addressed why in the ratified Amendment they did add it. Because if it’s as you claim, that is pretty solid evidence they wanted the individual rights. Also, why did the vast majority of the states make it abundantly clear when making their constitutions, modeled on the Federal one?

acdha 7y ago

Which CRS report are you referring to? I’m assuming not the one which recognizes that as a modern development: “Before the Supreme Court’s 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, the right generally had been understood by federal courts to be intertwined with military or militia use.” https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44618.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44618.pdf

ChrisLomont 7y ago
The next sentence after the one you quoted: " Still, there had been ample debate in the lower federal courts and political discussion over whether the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms, versus a collective right belonging to the states to maintain militias." It's also the meaning more clearly laid out in the 45+ states constitutions explicitly naming a personal right, since they modeled their Constitutions after the Federal one. The distinction between the two is a very modern dichotomy. And I listed the text of the CRS report above. Wikipedia has a decent summary of US legal cases [1]. Note the Supremes ruled it was individual in 1939 according to this summary. Here's a summary of state Constitutions [2]. Note how many explicitly give personal, mot militia, rights to bear arms. These are modeled after the meaning of the Federal Constitution as those states saw it when adopting their Constitutions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in... [2] http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
- acdha 7y ago
  Yes, especially the next sentence you didn’t include: > Pre-Heller, the vast majority of lower federal courts had embraced the collective right theory. Similarly, it would be useful if you discussed the reasons why the founders chose not to include any of the proposed individual rights language in the second amendment draft. It was a deliberate choice not to and there’s plenty of historical context available.
  - ChrisLomont 7y ago
    All of the Bill of Rights are individual rights, crafted to address complaints of the states about individual protections, most notably by the Anti-Federalists. If, as you claim, there was not individual rights in previous drafts, it would be useful if you addressed why in the ratified Amendment they did add it. Because if it’s as you claim, that is pretty solid evidence they wanted the individual rights. Also, why did the vast majority of the states make it abundantly clear when making their constitutions, modeled on the Federal one?