ONe thing about the language experts opinion that confuses me is his interpretation of the phrase “well-regulated”.
It's always been my belief that that phrase meant something completely different a couple hundred years ago. I thought well-regulated meant approximately “to run like clockwork”. Back in those days, clocks were hand built and one that kept accurate time was described as being “well-regulated”...which to me means an accurate, precise, and perfect machine. Applying this phrase to the description of a militia makes perfect sense to me. The best military of the times(think of the british redcoats) were well trained “machines” that marched, reloaded, fired in unison. Their survival depended on robot like precision and perfect, intantaneous execution of commands.
I have a book.
Manual of the Militia Laws of the United States and the State of Michigan
by William Shakespeare (not that Wm. Shakespeare!)
by the direction of the state Military Board
1883
The first 13 pgs or so cover UNITED STATES MILITIA LAW , title XVI, Secs. 1625-1667
It describes the makeup of the militia. The armaments various divisions are supposed to have. The skills of various militia members, like cannoneers, doctors, horsemen, etc.
It’s a very interesting book and maybe someday when I ain’t so busy, I’ll try to OCR it in.
Your understanding of “well-regulated” as it was understood 200 years ago is right on the mark.
Their survival depended on robot like precision and perfect, intantaneous execution of commands.
Yeah, the Redcoats did real good til the Minutemen found those coats made such good targets.
The non-infringement clause is intended to prevent the government from abrogating this good by fiat. However, the "regulation of the militia" is within the scope of gov't power. So if an act would infringe, it is forbidden, but if in aid, good thing. So for example the Civilian Marksmanship program is a good thing. If the local National Guard Armory offered training in how to use antiaircraft missiles or offered safe storage and inspection for your personally owned conventional/biological/chemical/nuclear weapons, this would also be a good thing.
My state's constitution (and I think most states' say something very similar) says that "The organized militia shall be designated "The National Guard of Arizona," But, at the same time it says that the militia "shall consist of all capable citizens of the state between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years....."
Doesn't that imply that we should keep and bear arms (and maybe even practice once in a while), just in case we are called?
I wonder how many citizens of various states know that, in time of dire need, they could be called to service?
Red Dawn, anyone? "What? You want me to do WHAT?!"