A Well Regulated Militia? (a view that you may never have heard before)

GodSeesYou.com ^ | Unknown | Ken Kiger

[RightFighter]

Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an "AMENDMENT". No "Articles in Amendment" to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until "further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added" "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers". (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.

In this Light:

"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." What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to "amended"?

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE "MILITIA". The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the "militia" as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. "(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.)

What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the "Militia" that was so offensive to the States?

First understand that the word "militia" was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the "Militia" was every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word "militia" as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment to correct. The only definition of "Militia" that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend "People" today:

"Militia" in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power:

"To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress:

"To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Any "patriot" out there still want to be called a member of the "MILITIA" as defined by the original Constitution?

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" The only way the States would accept the "MILITIA" as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED". The States realized that "THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE" required that the "MILITIA" as originally created in the Constitution be "WELL REGULATED" by a "restrictive clause." How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED"? By demanding that "restrictive clause two" better know as the "Second Amendment" be added to the original Constitution providing:

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The States knew that "PEOPLE" with "ARMS" would "WELL REGULATE" the Federal "MILITIA"!

Now read for the first time with the full brightness of the Light of truth:

"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."

For those still overcome by propaganda:

The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the "MILITIA" is not "WELL REGULATED" by "PEOPLE" keeping and bearing arms, the "MILITIA" becomes a threat to the "SECURITY OF A FREE STATE."

The "MILITIA" has no "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" in the Second Amendment, rather it is only "THE RIGHT OF THE ""PEOPLE"" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

[RightFighter]

I was searching for some info on gun rights and a good explanation of the 2nd amendment's wording regarding the militia yesterday, and I happened upon this site. I read this, and it was like my eyes opened for the first time to what the 2nd Amendment really means. I had never considered it in this way before. I always thought that the amendment was basically saying that we should have the right to keep and bear arms in case we need to organize as a militia to secure ourselves, but this is an entirely different perspective, and, I think probably the correct one.

Thoughts?

[JOAT]

Very interesting. Good post.

[TurboZamboni]

every leftist tells me “well-regulated” means “lots of government regulations.”

[blueunicorn6]

I believe this is the correct understanding. Thank-you for posting it.

[RightFighter]

I told a friend yesterday that the 2nd does not say “the right of the people to keep and bear well-regulated arms...” or “the right of the well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms...”

[Robert357]

Thank you for sharing, it does make sense.

I have been studying the various state constitutions and their RTKBA language and been struck by the fact that most of them (not all) clearly define the RTKBA as an individual’s right and that self defense is often discussed as well as defense of the State.

[Defiant]

It’s an interesting perspective, but one that should be supported by contemporaneous writings if this is indeed the intent.

[Aevery_Freeman]

Please read Miracle at Pennsylvania to understand how every word of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was meticulously argued and fought over.

If there had been any ambiguity in the understanding of the Second Amendment, it would not have take over 200 years to discover it.

Modern, progressive, interpretation of the founding documents have produced many falsehoods, ambiguities, penumbras and fictitious rights that the founders did not include.

[Hoodat]

From Federalist 29, Hamilton makes it clear that gun rights are a state issue. It is entirely up to each State to determine how much it wants to allow weaponry access to any potential militia members.

[csmusaret]

I thought “well regulated” meant “well equipped” in the vernacular of the day.

[gorush]

ping

[Sacajaweau]

Reading the ratification by NYS makes the right to bear arms much clearer. Please be aware that all the "brains" edited it to death when they finally approved the Bill of Rights.

What we know with absolute certainity is the Bill of Rights pertains to each and every one of us as "an individual".

Read my next post please.

[Sacajaweau]

http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_decl-ny.htm

[onyx]

Thank you very much.

[onyx]

Please Support Free Republic Today!

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

It needs to be clarified how “regulated,” even used in the wrong context as gun grabbers often do to support their agenda, doesn't mean what they think it does. The framers of the Constitution never said that regulated equals government control. It meant trained and equipped. It's the same as bleeding hearts redefining “welfare” to mean the government trough and not its real original intended meaning of well being.

[Wurlitzer]

As it is almost impossible to debate any Saul Alinsky loving liberal with just a few words. When they try to force me into the militia quagmire, I simply reply.

“No honest person could possibly look at the 1st to 5th Amendments (call them what ever you want but keep it short) and not realize every one of them was 100% to protect the citizens from an overreaching government therefore “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” is the definitive term and with the very first gun law passed the federal government violated the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

“SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” is not grey it is an absolute. There is no wiggle room in “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” yet we have allowed them to make the phrase meaningless.

The lying, dishonest, treasonous scum on the left, from our boy community organizer on down, are either too ignorant or are truly the enemy within and working to implement every element of the communist manifesto.

I maintain, our right to protect ourselves from an overreaching government DEMANDS we have equal fire power to what ever the government is willing to use against its own citizens. If that statement is wrong then the RTKBA is completely meaningless as they could regulate us down to slingshots and still claim we are armed.

[Jim Hill]

ping

[Iron Munro]

This dovetails well with the understanding that the founders did not envision having a large standing armed forces as we have today.

[Beagle8U]

I agree. Regulated meant to make regular, common, in good working order, armed with what is in common use.

It is also clear that the right is a right of the people.

It doesn't really matter what is in the first part, all that matters is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The first part could have said anything and it wouldn't change it.

“Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, being necessary to feed Elvis, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

It might be a dumb reason for doing so, but it doesn't change the intent of the amendment.