5 ms·

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 "ru

by 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?
- cjsplat 4y ago
  There were draft versions of the 2A that didn't include the militia clause. Saw one on display at the national archives. So it was explicitly added or kept after negotiation.
- byecomputer 4y ago
  2A was initially presented as > The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. Then, the next time it appeared, it was reworded as > A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms. Before being whittled down to nix religious exemption and leave ambiguous who runs the militia > 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. Judging from the Congressional record nobody focused on the fact that the militia clause got flipped between meetings, so take from that what you will.
byecomputer 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. That's how I read it as well. In fact, I consider the whole first part of 2A ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,") as more of a quick justification that has no legal bearing on the actual right that follows ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.") So, essentially, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State [begets that] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
jdkee 4y ago
Here is a reasonable interpretation of the words "well-regulated" in the context of the Second Amendment. See https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/ https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-milit...
sethrin 4y ago
The thing that no one seems to remember about the 2A is that it was meant to establish a militia as opposed to a standing army, which was seen as an inherent threat to liberty. Obviously opinions on that subject have changed over the years, particularly after the militia let DC burn.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  That does seem like a justifiable interpretation, and I'm inclined to agree. They mentioned militia for a reason. And it makes sense -- if the point of arming the citizenry is as a check on federal tyranny, then a militia is how it will have to happen. The idea that the 2A is about self-defense seems a very recent interpretation.
  - agensaequivocum 4y ago
    Not exactly: > 7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people of any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals;... * The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents (December 18,1787)

by gjm11 4y ago

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?

cjsplat 4y ago
There were draft versions of the 2A that didn't include the militia clause. Saw one on display at the national archives. So it was explicitly added or kept after negotiation.
byecomputer 4y ago
2A was initially presented as > The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. Then, the next time it appeared, it was reworded as > A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms. Before being whittled down to nix religious exemption and leave ambiguous who runs the militia > 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. Judging from the Congressional record nobody focused on the fact that the militia clause got flipped between meetings, so take from that what you will.

byecomputer 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. That's how I read it as well. In fact, I consider the whole first part of 2A ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,") as more of a quick justification that has no legal bearing on the actual right that follows ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.") So, essentially, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State [begets that] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

jdkee 4y ago

Here is a reasonable interpretation of the words "well-regulated" in the context of the Second Amendment. See https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/ https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-milit...

sethrin 4y ago

The thing that no one seems to remember about the 2A is that it was meant to establish a militia as opposed to a standing army, which was seen as an inherent threat to liberty. Obviously opinions on that subject have changed over the years, particularly after the militia let DC burn.

rootusrootus 4y ago
That does seem like a justifiable interpretation, and I'm inclined to agree. They mentioned militia for a reason. And it makes sense -- if the point of arming the citizenry is as a check on federal tyranny, then a militia is how it will have to happen. The idea that the 2A is about self-defense seems a very recent interpretation.
- agensaequivocum 4y ago
  Not exactly: > 7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people of any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals;... * The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents (December 18,1787)