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.
My reading is that the right of the poeople to keep and bear arms was NECESSARY since a free state depends on the people to form regulated militias. It does not say arms should be regulated but that the people have a right to their arms.
"regulated" at that time meant "trained".
That first, SUBORDINATE clause wasn't about controlling firearms, it was about a trained militia.
To moonbats, Yoda-like the 2nd amendment reads. Very annoying, they are.
"Regulated" has different connotations today. I believe that the original intent was for the people to remain practiced and skilled, not limited and controlled.
No one would take a clock in to be "regulated" in this day and age, but in the 1700s the term meant working well.
Really, we should all be gathering regularily, for some practice.
See the Militia Act of 1792. All able-bodied free men were REQUIRED to own a military-style rifle, bayonet, etc, in order to function as part of the "well-regulated militia"
My old ROTC manual "well regulated" in the context of militia as "uniform in training and organization", as in possessing a high level of training
Right but it does not say everyone can have guns nor that those who can have an unlimited right to have them anywhere all the time.
Actually, if you read it as rigorously as the First Amendment is read, it would be an OBLIGATION to keep and bear arms.
"Well regulated" as in "regulating" a clock.
"Regulated", as in trained and equipped in a similar manner, wearing easily identified uniforms so as to prevent "friendly fire" incidents.
"Regulated" as in ensuring that each member of a unit used the same caliber of ammunition.
"Regulated", so that members of the militia could share ammunition and supplies, or take up the supplies of a dead comrade when necessary.
The chief mischief seems to be a deliberate misunderstanding of the word "Regulated" to mean prohibited, in place of the original intent.
You may have noticed that our troops today wear a standard uniform for their service, carry standardized arms and ammunition, go through standardized training, etc.?
The modern standing army is "regulated" more in keeping with the intent of our founders (who really did not want a standing army) than the citizens are.
"Militia" has been transformed into a pejorative term by the liberal enemies of a free America.
Not bad.
From the Federalist Papers, available free from Gutenberg.org
from FEDERALIST No. 46 (Madison)excerpted, in a continuous block, my comments in small font, bold emphasis mine
That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made.
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.
The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.
To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.
Kinda shoots down some "scholars" doesn't it
It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
thus granting 'security' to the 'free state'.
Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
Well, things have sure changed. A republic, if we can keep it.
The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people.
On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.
PUBLIUS.
My reading is that the right of the poeople to keep and bear arms was NECESSARY since a free state depends on the people to form regulated militias. It does not say arms should be regulated but that the people have a right to their arms.
My reading is that the right of the poeople to keep and bear arms is NECESSARY to regulate the militias. It does not say arms should be regulated but that Militias should be regulated.
Simiular to phrases such as:
A well honed knife being...
A well trained orchestra being...
Right. Back when it was written, didn't "well regulated" actually mean "well supplied".....?
The term "regulated" applied to clocks means "accurate in keeping time". It made sense, particularly in 18th Century armies, to have to pay a lot of attention to how well soldiers could operate in massed formations. Soldiers had to be drilled to load, aim, and fire as one unit. You do NOT want the rifle next to you to be firing (and emitting a shower of sparks) while you are pouring gunpowder into your musket. Everybody had to do every step together with no screwups.
I forget what FReeper I grabbed that from, but it makes all the sense in the world, if you understand how the flintlock muskets of the era work, when employed in mass military formations.
When the need arose, the citizens didn't go to a formation area and get issued guns; they brought their own...a critical difference in using the word "militia" and "regulated" to infer that possession of guns is a government prerogative. In fact, it is the opposite; possession of a gun is really the decision of the citizen, that particular citizen, and NOT ANY other.
EXACTLY!This guy is(obviously)a WOLF(in sheep's clothing)!!!
Yah, this is classic: The word 'Regulated' meant 'Armed' at the time.
It could be read, "A Well-ARMED Militia, being necessary to the security etc."
"Regulated" does not mean gun control. It means that the militia will the most up-to-date arms.