3 ms·

"well-regulated" means "well-armed" or "well-equipped", not "well-regulated by laws". cf. https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm https://cons

"well-regulated" means "well-armed" or "well-equipped", not "well-regulated by laws". cf. https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm See my other comment below about the precise legal definition of militia.

kristjansson 4y ago
More like 'appropriately armed' or 'properly equipped', no? "well-armed" and "well-equipped" imply a surfeit of arms and equipment, whereas well-regulated connotes balance or homeostasis
ameister14 4y ago
I don't think it's actually just arms and equipment. It means 'well-ordered.' It's the ability to call up organize and elect leadership from the people at need, among many other things. For example, Article I Section 8 provides Congress the power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;" It's in a similar manner that the 2nd should treat 'regulated' militias.
gjm11 4y ago
That page neither argues that, nor supports the view that, "well-regulated" means well armed or well equipped. The page argues that it means something like "running well", but the examples they give seem to me to fit better with a slightly different meaning that also matches the etymology of the word (in Latin a regula is a rule; it comes from the word meaning to rule or govern). I think "well-regulated" means some combination of: well organized, well governed, well adjusted, well controlled. In the Second Amendment it may or may not have specifically the sense of "well organized/governed/adjusted/controlled by the nation's government". But it's definitely not just talking about a militia that has enough weapons, or a militia that is good at shooting the people it wants to shoot; a well-regulated militia is one that is well organized and that makes good choices about who to shoot and why. (It also seems clear to me that "well-regulated" is not there to be any part of the point of the Second Amendment. I think it's mentioned in passing, possibly exactly to reassure people who might otherwise worry that the 2A is trying to set things up so that armed mobs terrorize everyone. "For a free state to remain secure, it needs a militia -- yes, yes, of course it has to be a well regulated one -- and so the people must be able to have weapons.")
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > It also seems clear to me that "well-regulated" is not there to be any part of the point of the Second Amendment. Well, it's critical to the point in that a working militia can serve a purpose, and a broken militia can't. Contemporary documents make the point of the Second Amendment very explicit - its purpose is to prevent the United States from maintaining a standing army. But that's not what it does or what it claims to do; that's just the reason it exists.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Contemporary documents make the point of the Second Amendment very explicit - its purpose is to prevent the United States from maintaining a standing army. It's worth noting here that this is frequently cited and correct, but misses a critical point: this was before permanent paramilitary police forces, and one of the main reasons for fearing the establishment of a standing army is that this armed force with a distinct and insular culture from the citizenry would inevitably be used for internal security as well as against external enemies; the fear of standing armies is perhaps most accurately understood as a fear of permanent, insular domestic security services extending so far as to fearing permanent defense forces that could be turned to that purpose.
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      I mean, you don't have to tell me. I'm on the record stating that the police are, by all definitions that do not refer to the actual word "police", a military body. Calling a soldier an "officer" doesn't mean he's not a soldier.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  > not there to be any part of the point of the Second Amendment Given how few words the Constitution uses to describe things, I have to assume there is a point of some kind to every word in the document. We've chosen to interpret all of these words in 2A to be irrelevant, but if the writers of the document intended that, why did they put them there to begin with?

kristjansson 4y ago

More like 'appropriately armed' or 'properly equipped', no? "well-armed" and "well-equipped" imply a surfeit of arms and equipment, whereas well-regulated connotes balance or homeostasis

ameister14 4y ago

I don't think it's actually just arms and equipment. It means 'well-ordered.' It's the ability to call up organize and elect leadership from the people at need, among many other things. For example, Article I Section 8 provides Congress the power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;" It's in a similar manner that the 2nd should treat 'regulated' militias.

gjm11 4y ago

That page neither argues that, nor supports the view that, "well-regulated" means well armed or well equipped. The page argues that it means something like "running well", but the examples they give seem to me to fit better with a slightly different meaning that also matches the etymology of the word (in Latin a regula is a rule; it comes from the word meaning to rule or govern). I think "well-regulated" means some combination of: well organized, well governed, well adjusted, well controlled. In the Second Amendment it may or may not have specifically the sense of "well organized/governed/adjusted/controlled by the nation's government". But it's definitely not just talking about a militia that has enough weapons, or a militia that is good at shooting the people it wants to shoot; a well-regulated militia is one that is well organized and that makes good choices about who to shoot and why. (It also seems clear to me that "well-regulated" is not there to be any part of the point of the Second Amendment. I think it's mentioned in passing, possibly exactly to reassure people who might otherwise worry that the 2A is trying to set things up so that armed mobs terrorize everyone. "For a free state to remain secure, it needs a militia -- yes, yes, of course it has to be a well regulated one -- and so the people must be able to have weapons.")

thaumasiotes 4y ago
> It also seems clear to me that "well-regulated" is not there to be any part of the point of the Second Amendment. Well, it's critical to the point in that a working militia can serve a purpose, and a broken militia can't. Contemporary documents make the point of the Second Amendment very explicit - its purpose is to prevent the United States from maintaining a standing army. But that's not what it does or what it claims to do; that's just the reason it exists.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Contemporary documents make the point of the Second Amendment very explicit - its purpose is to prevent the United States from maintaining a standing army. It's worth noting here that this is frequently cited and correct, but misses a critical point: this was before permanent paramilitary police forces, and one of the main reasons for fearing the establishment of a standing army is that this armed force with a distinct and insular culture from the citizenry would inevitably be used for internal security as well as against external enemies; the fear of standing armies is perhaps most accurately understood as a fear of permanent, insular domestic security services extending so far as to fearing permanent defense forces that could be turned to that purpose.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    I mean, you don't have to tell me. I'm on the record stating that the police are, by all definitions that do not refer to the actual word "police", a military body. Calling a soldier an "officer" doesn't mean he's not a soldier.
rootusrootus 4y ago
> not there to be any part of the point of the Second Amendment Given how few words the Constitution uses to describe things, I have to assume there is a point of some kind to every word in the document. We've chosen to interpret all of these words in 2A to be irrelevant, but if the writers of the document intended that, why did they put them there to begin with?