[El Gato]

5. If the word "regulated" in the 2nd Amendment referred ONLY to efficiency, then the adjective well placed immediately before it becomes redundant. But as I stated above "regulation" in the intent of the framers referred to "disciplining" (Art. 1, Sec. 8) or "direction" (Federalist #29), which means much more than "efficiency." It is the insertion of the adjective to modify the term as "well regulated" that changes its meaning from simply "disciplined" or "directed" to "efficiently disciplined" or "efficiently directed."

Nice try, but try looking up other common uses of "well regulated" more or less contemporaneous with the passage of the second amendment. It was a "term of art", used in may contexts to mean "properly functioning" or "fit for its intended purpose". The two words together meant more than the sum of their parts. Even today the phrase doesn't mean Controlled by government Check out this Abstract of a Scientific paper which says in part:

Interpretive Summary: It has been known for years that lipid stores are well regulated. Recently a new hormone termed leptin, which is secreted by liver and fat tissue has been identified in birds. It is known that leptin is involved in appetite regulation as well as energy metabolism in mammals. When administered into the brain of mammals, food intake is inhibited. Whether similar functions can be attributed to leptin in poultry is unknown. The study reported herein investigated the effect of centrally administered leptin on food and water intake in meat-type and egg-laying chickens. It was observed that leptin injected in a dose-dependent manner inhibited feed intake in both types of chickens. This effect was specific for food as water intake was unaffected. The results of this study strongly support the hypothesis that leptin is an important integrator of appetite in birds. The results are of interest to other scientists.

Somehow I don't think that any government rules or laws are affecting the lipid stores of chickens.

Or This one Which states in part

Some of us are blessed with a well regulated appetite and the ability to balance our energy intake and expenditure

Substitute your definition of well regulated, that is restricted by rules, and the "properly functioning" definition, for "well regulated" and see which sort of militia you'd want to trust your security to, one hemmed in by rules designed to lesson it's capability as a miltary force, or "properly functioning" one. I think the answer is obvious.

Art. 1 section 8 does not speak of regulating the militia, but rather "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia" Organizing meant setting the size of units, how many of each type, and so forth. Disciplining did not mean punishing, but rather providing common drills and procedures, what we would call standards today. Arming of course is obvious. But note the Congress wasn't given a mandate to arm the millita, but only to provide for that arming. In the event they did so by passing laws stating what sorts of arms the militia should/must have, not what the members could have.

The other part of section 8 makes the part about disciplining somewhat more clear "reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;?

[StJacques]

First of all; "Disciplining" also carries with it a sense of authority and oversight, which is practically the definition of "regulation" as we use it today, although we tend to see it as an executive branch function and the founders saw it as a legislative responsibility. And the real thrust of "disciplining" the militia as provided for in Article 1, Section 8 was intended to provide "uniformity" among the various militia units as Federalist #29 makes clear.

Hamilton, generally considered to be the sole author of Federalist #29, is the only one of the founders we have -- unless you have another to offer -- who gives us his take on "regulation" and the militia and he makes very clear that "regulation" does refer to both "direction" and "discipline" as quoted here in Federalist #29, paragraph 2:

". . . This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia . . ."

Hitting the highlights, uniformity is accomplished by regulation under the national authority, therefore the plan for discipling the militia . . ., etc. Regulation is a concept of the delineation of authority, something which suggests the "properly functioning" concept you propose falls short in my opinion.

There is more in Federalist #29 that makes clear that the intention of the founders was that Congress was undertaking a duty to exercise its authority as the "guardian of national security" in regulating the militia.

From paragraph 3:

". . . If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security . . . ."

The phrase "under the regulation" is directly at odds with any argument that the founders intended "regulation" to mean solely an "efficient" or "properly functioning" type of relationship. Use of the word "under" alone refers to a relationship of authority.

The notion of "regulation" as implying authority is strengthened even further, later in Federalist #29 when Hamilton associates "regulation" with the word "command" and is further extended to envision the federal government "prescribing regulations" -- which can only mean "regulate" in the sense of authoritative management -- as stated in paragraph 9:

". . . What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, . . ."

Against all of this clearly-stated intent cited from the Federalist Papers I would have to ask for an accompanying counter from another authoritative source of the period speaking to the meaning of the militia clauses of the constitution to hold it up against and which suggests that there is no intent to regulate the militia other than to suggest maintaining its proper functioning. The stated goal in Federalist #29 was clearly a relationship of authority.

And El Gato, I do hope you caught the rest of my post #233 in which I made clear that the 2nd Amendment use of the term "well regulated" only recognizes that Congress has the power to regulate the militia as a collective body and that this does not extend to any power to regulate individual gun ownership.