[alloysteel]

It always troubled me, the language referring to a "Well-regulated Militia" followed by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Two altogether separate things are being considered here, and could only be joined if ALL citizens were to be, at one time or another, members of the militia. Since the emphasis is on "Well-regulated" this would seem to exclude clandestinely formed and outlaw militias. Perhaps, the interpretation could be made that service in an acceptable "Well-regulated Militia" could be a requisite to ownership and use of firearms.

[asformeandformyhouse]

It always troubled me, the language referring to a "Well-regulated Militia" followed by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Maybe this can help: The Language of the Second Amendment

[Shooter 2.5]

It's quite simple.
The two part amendment is worded for the protection of the state and the people. The first part protects the state from the federal government and the second part protects the people from both the state and the federal government.
No citizen has to have anything to do with a militia in order to have their rights.

[Charles Martel]

Two altogether separate things are being considered here, and could only be joined if ALL citizens were to be, at one time or another, members of the militia. Since the emphasis is on "Well-regulated" this would seem to exclude clandestinely formed and outlaw militias.

I don't see any such conflict, aside from females being limited to membership in the "organized" militia. I'm pretty sure that if women were willing to take up arms as part of the unorganized militia, they would get no argument.

U.S. Code, Title 10

Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes

(a)

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

The classes of the militia are - (1)

the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)

the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

[RogueIsland]

It always troubled me, the language referring to a "Well-regulated Militia" followed by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

The first clause is just some fluff setting out one reason why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but it in no way modifies the second clause. Think of it this way. Rewrite the sentence as, "Thomas Jefferson has a nice dog, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The first clause in no way modifies the meaning of the second clause.

[alaskanfan]

"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliment was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually....I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."......George Mason during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"who are the militia?are they not ourselves?....Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American..".....Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvannia Gazette, February 20, 1788.

"A malitia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves....all men capable of bearing arms....".....Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, Additional Letters, from the Federal Farmer, 1788

[Travis McGee]

In 1790 "well regulated" did not mean "tightly controlled by the government" as it does today. It meant "properly operating and well tuned" as in "a well regulated clock keeps the proper time" and not "a well regulated clock is checked by a government inspector once a week". That meaning of "well regulated" would have been completely alien in 1790.

[EternalVigilance]

Over the course of 200 years, the language has changed.

In 18th century usage, 'well-regulated' literally meant 'well-trained'...not under the control of a government body. This misunderstanding probably leads to more confusion about the meaning of the Second Amendment than any other thing.

The founders never in a million years meant to make the people subservient to the government, but quite the reverse, they sought to ensure that the government always stayed in subservience to the people.

[Squantos]

I believe the term "well regulated" was once suggested to mean that all citizens have the same caliber of musket so as to preclude a logistic/quartermaster problem of supplying munitions to those that responded to their nations defense.

That was just "one" explaination I have heard-read over the years. I stand ready to learn if anyone has a better explaination of the phrase. This explaination of "well regulated" is what I use when socialist seditionial clintonista types claim that of all of the bill of rights this is the only one that doesn't refer to the individual just the goobermint.......yeah right.

Stay Safe !

[Ancesthntr]

Since the emphasis is on "Well-regulated" this would seem to exclude clandestinely formed and outlaw militias. Perhaps, the interpretation could be made that service in an acceptable "Well-regulated Militia" could be a requisite to ownership and use of firearms

Uh, no. First of all, the emphasis is on "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The first clause is entirely dependent on the second. However, I will indulge you and argue about "well regulated."

The term "well-regulated" has nothing to do with getting the approval of 10,000 constipated bureaucrats who are having trouble getting over their hangovers. Read it in the language it was written - American English of the 1790's. In those days, well-regulated meant well-trained or synchronized. The term is still in use today - if you have a double-barreled shotgun, the barrels have to be regulated (i.e. synchronized with each other) in order to put shot on the same target at some particular range.

Think of not only the language of the time, but the times themselves. Most of those who voted on the language in the 2nd Amendment fought in the Revolutionary War. Without the unlimited availability of firearms in 1776, we'd have lost, badly. As it is, we won, badly. Also, they were generally afraid of the power of a central government, many of them having lost family, friends and fortune fighting against a powerful central government. That's why the power of the Fedgov was purposely designed to be limited, that the limited power was itself divided among 3 competing branches, and certain actions deemed harmful to liberty were specifically banned by the Bill of Rights. Do you honestly think that these same people, living with their collective (boy, I hate to use that word, especially in a post about guns) experiences, would even THINK of limiting the right to keep and bear arms? Hell, no. In fact, the very reason for the 2nd Amendment was to serve as a backstop, a safety net, a fail-safe option in case the very limited government that they had so carefully designed became perverted by the power-hungry leaders of the future (gee, does this remind you of any group - the Democrapic Party - in particular?). The 2nd Amendment was designed specifically to make certain that the Fedgov would be kept in awe of the power of the citizenry, so much so that it would not become a tyranny, and if it did, so that the citizens would have the tools necessary to overthrow the corrupt government and start over - just like the Founding Fathers themselves had started to do only 15 years before the 2nd Amendment was ratified.

The history of the Revolutionary War era, the philosophy of the Founding Fathers, the structure of our government, and the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment itself don't tolerate ANY limits on the small arms owned by the citizens. But it goes beyond even that. Read the Constitution. It speaks of Congress granting Letters of Marque. What are those? Basically, permission to be a pirate. Why? Because the fedgov didn't have the biggest, baddest Navy in the world, like we've had for the better part of a century. Nope, we were weak. But certain wealthy individuals owned ships equal to the Naval vessels of the time and cannon to match. Fast forward to today. That means that Bill Gates, if he wanted to, should be able to order and outfit a nuclear carrier battle group. To employ it in a war, he'd need Letters of Marque - but a rational reading of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, together with the writings of the Founding Fathers and knowledge of the times DEMANDS the conclusion that he has the right to do so if he can pay for it. We also have that right (though all of Freeperdom combined probably couldn't afford it).

The people of this country created the fedgov. The Constitution is like an employment contract. All of the fedgov's powers come from the people (the employer) - you, me, Freepers, soccer moms, Rosie O'Fatso, Rush Limbaugh, i.e. us - individuals. How then can "we the people" have our rights denied by the fedgov, our employee?

GET IT???

[teeman8r]

many view the "well regulated militia" line with a modern reading of restriction.... in the terms of our founding fathers, "well regulated" meant properly trained and equipped.

reading it as such, and with the militia being every able bodied man, then, the text is all too clear...