Replies

. . . it occurred to me that it could be looked at as follows:

“A well-regulated militia, . . .

The problem with this and most of the other comments is that this is one phrase where the meaning in contemporary English has changed from the original meaning.

"Well-regulated" did not mean "controlled by laws not passed by Congress." "Well-regulated" meant "smoothly and efficiently operating." Hence, many clocks were called, "Regulators", not because they controlled things by written rules, but because they operated smoothly and efficiently.

So, a 'well-regulated' militia was one that could operate efficiently in the absence of direct control by government. This is exactly derived from our experience during the Revolutionary War, and in particular by Lexington and Concord. On Lexington Green, our militia tried to fight a set-piece battle with British Army regulars, and lost terribly. Our 'militia' was not a conventional military force and not able to participate effectively in conventional military battles.

But, after that the British marched on Concord. The 'militia' sniped at them from behind fences and trees and hay bales, using their own personal weapons with which they were already skilled. And they tore the British regulars up.

So, the most direct and reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment follows from that experience. In order to have an effective militia, the people need to have their own weapons and be familiar with their use. They don't need to be members of a conventional military force, because that didn't work well for us (and beside, we didn't trust a standing army anyway), but woe to the enemy who tries to attack us when every tree, every hay bale, and every fence hides ordinary citizens who are very skilled in using their personal weapons to shoot whatever they feel needs to be shot - whether it's a deer, a robber, or a uniformed soldier.

I don't disagree with those who say that the Second Amendment is about fighting tyranny, but the key is that the skill the members of the militia bring - for whatever purpose - is a result of their owning and using firearms in their ordinary lives. Hence they could report for militia duty already possessing the weapons and the skills to support effective service to the public good.

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html

Above is an interesting article about the Powder Alarm where much of the language of the 2nd Amendment is also included. The British raided the local militia’s powder warehouse six months or so prior to Lexington/Concord. The local militia was British - and was primarily to be called upon to fight Indians iirc.

Anyway - so the people got together and decided to change it from a British militia to an “American” one. Wrote up new rules - but all the folks in the old one kept their same ranks and duties.

They also started training on a more regular basis.

I’ve read elsewhere that if the British Army had not taken the powder, we probably would have won the battle of Bunker Hill. (And “arms” included cannons).

“So, a ‘well-regulated’ militia was one that could operate efficiently in the absence of direct control by government.”

“Could.” But that does not mean they either always or never operated efficiently in the absence of direct control by government. I believe the Colonial Governors called out the militia on occasion. The US Constitution allows for calling out the militia. State Constitutions allow for calling out the militia.

“In order to have an effective militia, the people need to have their own weapons and be familiar with their use.”

By law, the National Guard is the organized militia and while they may individually have their own arms, the arms they use as members of the National Guard are provided by the government. It may be arguable whether or not the National Guard is an organized militia except by law and whether it is the same as the “well-regulated militia” envisioned by the Founders, but if it isn’t I don’t believe there is a well-regulated militia in the US, at least I haven’t heard of one.