Replies

Most of the analysis is very good, but one error crept in. Although the analyzer, Copperud, did say "To the best of my knowledge", rather than making an absolute statement.

Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

The meaning of "regulated" and especially "well regulated" has changed over the years. "Well regulated meant properly functioning, well suited for it's intended purpose, not controlled by an outside entity. This is pretty clear in a quote from 1788

That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence.

That your Secretary humbly apprehends the regular troops of the Union on the Ohio were considered as the basis of the before recited resolve of the 21st of July 1787. That the Militia intended to have been drawn forth were to have acted as auxiliaries to the said regular troops and that all the arrangements were to have been made under the direction of the commanding Officer of the said troops. That the case is widely different on the frontiers of Georgia no troops of the United States being there, nor is it easily practicable to remove any considerable body from the Ohio, were the measure expedient in other respects.

That this difference of circumstances will require a different and more extensive arrangement for the protection of the frontier of Georgia than any that were contemplated by the aforesaid resolve of the 21st of July 1787.

That the frontiers of Georgia may be protected either by a large body of militia detached from time to time, or by a Corps of troops regularly organized and enlisted for a certain period. That a consideration of the expence and irregularity of detachments of mere militia, compared with the oeconomy and vigor of a corps of troops properly organized would evince the great superiority and advantage to be derived to the public by the adoption of the organized troops.

That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions. Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1788.