• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2A definition: "...well regulated Militia..."

Polar Bum;1067529082 said:
I also, have heard quite often the argument that "militia" refers to the National Guard and Military Reserves; yet neither the timeline or definitions under the Federal Codes support these statements.

Which takes us back to the intent of the writers of the constitution and the Amendment in question.....The Citizens.....every able bodied citizen 17-45 capable of bearing arms. You and I.

Very well written.

When one looks at the drafting of our Constitution, they have to literally throw away everything that is current and look at the mindset of those who wrote it. And much of this can be seen in both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.

In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Militia should be made up of all adult males living in the individual States, and under control of that state. In essence an almost universal draft.

However, the Anti-Federalist stance was that all members were also members of the Militia, but it should not be placed under control of the State unless it was needed at that time.

And in this case, the Anti-Federalists essentially won. And until the start of the 20th Century, that is how Militias were handled. Largely independent groups with minimal training and equipment, called up by their states at need. In fact, a great many were founded and supported by civic organizations and wealthy individuals as a form of prestige, and their officers were more often than not elected to their posts.

It was only at the dawn of the 20th century when it was realized that a more firm control of these groups had to be made because of the advances in both communication and travel. In the 19th century you literally could (and did) have a war end but both sides continue to fight because word of the peace had not reached them yet. Or have an invasion fleet appear off the shore with no warning.

But steam ships, telegraph, and then radio made this increasingly hard to fight against. Especially since the Army was purposefully kept at low numbers for most of the history of our country. In 1900 the Army was only 101,000 strong (mostly due to the remainders who served in the Spanish-American War a few years earlier). And this would remain the high point until World War I.

And it was realized that the US can not rely in a modern war of calling up huge amounts of troops, training them, equipping them, then sending them to an area of conflict in a reasonable amount of time. So the Reserves and National Guard were created. This standardized ranks and training, and kept these "citizen soldiers" ready for action where the looser militia system did not.

So stripping away the 20th century changes in the country and military, the 18th century concept has to be used. Where everybody is in the militia.
 
The Second Amendment to the Constitution: "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."

Please focus on only the three words on bold. No thing else, no other part. What do they mean? Is their meaning clear, or open to interpretation?

Is a militia the people in general, or is it a state-sponsored organized and approved government body? Does the fact that "Militia" is capitalized lean toward an organized government body (as a formal name, essentially), or is that irrelevant? Maybe just grammatical peculiarities of the day.

If you believe their meaning is clear, why do many people have other definitions? Are they being dishonest and/or insincere?

Thoughts?

Well trained and equipped militia (i.e., male citizenry age 18-50); those capable for defending home and state.
 
Let me offer a counter perspective. There are roughly 2.2 million military retirees right now. There are roughly 22 million former servicmembers (non-retirees). I cant cite the actual number but last time I saw there was something like 13 million former or retired law enforcement officers. That alone is approx 37 million armed citizens with command and tactical experience. There are approx 20 million competitive/sports shooters in the US.

I think you underestimate the capacity of law abiding armed citizens to organize in a relatively short order. I also think you overlook the fact that the US was formed and its independence won precisely because of the ability of the civilian soldier to form and fight.

You failed to include the will of professional military to fire on and kill their own friends, family and fellow citizens. Do they have the will?
 
You failed to include the will of professional military to fire on and kill their own friends, family and fellow citizens. Do they have the will?
Ive mentioned that before. In order for the US to reach the point where that kind of an order MIGHT be issued we would be long past Constitutionality. The reality is the military is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution...not the whims and will of some tinhorn dictator...so no...I dont think the military would ever receive that order, nor execute it if someone was stupid enough to try and give it.
 
Ive mentioned that before. In order for the US to reach the point where that kind of an order MIGHT be issued we would be long past Constitutionality. The reality is the military is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution...not the whims and will of some tinhorn dictator...so no...I dont think the military would ever receive that order, nor execute it if someone was stupid enough to try and give it.

Don't you think we reached that point a century ago when RA troops fired on and killed several of the Brown Shoe Army protests in Washington DC?

Didn't we reach that point at Kent State? Guard troops instead of RA, but it happened.
 
Somebody gave me this sentence one time:

"A good night's sleep, being necessary to the health of a body, the right of the people to keep and use beds, shall not be infringed."

Does that sentence mean I can only use a bed to sleep at night? Can I use it to take a nap? Can I just lay on it to watch TV? :)




*sigh*


well regulated means "in good working order"


Now that you know this information this is what the second says.


in order for the gov to call up a militia, the right of ALL of the people to own and use guns can not be restricted.


the idea is to have a pool of armed citizens to call forth a militia from.
 
*sigh*


well regulated means "in good working order"

People forget how word meanings change, get slanted, etc. over the years. Have to refer to old dictionaries, but the lazy armchair lawyers refuse to research things. They just rely on their favorite activists words as gospel.
 
Don't you think we reached that point a century ago when RA troops fired on and killed several of the Brown Shoe Army protests in Washington DC?

Didn't we reach that point at Kent State? Guard troops instead of RA, but it happened.
Interesting choice of analogies. Kent State was not an instance where the military was called in to attack citizens. Kent State was an instance where college students and outside agitators had made deliberate and specific threats against citizens government buildings and private businesses. Those same agitators were not protesting peacefully...they were openly and aggressively attacking the entire local and county law enforcement contingency. When the Guard were called in their mission was to attempt to keep the peace. This was immediately after the protesters had burned the ROTC building on campus to the ground. At some point a small group of the Guardsmen present decided for whatever reason to open fire on a small group of students. They werent ordered to. Their actions were deemed illegal and unjustified.
 
*sigh*


well regulated means "in good working order"


Now that you know this information this is what the second says.


in order for the gov to call up a militia, the right of ALL of the people to own and use guns can not be restricted.


the idea is to have a pool of armed citizens to call forth a militia from.
Its almost like they say "History? Meh....who needs it..we'll make up our own"
 
Interesting choice of analogies. Kent State was not an instance where the military was called in to attack citizens. Kent State was an instance where college students and outside agitators had made deliberate and specific threats against citizens government buildings and private businesses. Those same agitators were not protesting peacefully...they were openly and aggressively attacking the entire local and county law enforcement contingency. When the Guard were called in their mission was to attempt to keep the peace. This was immediately after the protesters had burned the ROTC building on campus to the ground. At some point a small group of the Guardsmen present decided for whatever reason to open fire on a small group of students. They werent ordered to. Their actions were deemed illegal and unjustified.

Rationalize it any way you need to VM, and don't even address the Brown Shoe Army event.

Your first post theorized and suggested that we have not reached the point where US troops fire on US civilians. I merely pointed out we reached that point decades ago. US troops will indeed fire on US civilians.
 
My thoughts.

I believe that it is intended to mean all the people, collectively and/or individually. That is my interpretation.

However, I do know people who believe it means the government's military, and I know these people personally and I also know them to be absolutely sincere in their beliefs. They claim that the words "well regulated" means government sponsored and approved, because, well, who else would 'regulate'?

I wholly disagree with them, but I do not question the sincerity of their position.

In the usage of the times, 'regulated' did refer to training.
 
Rationalize it any way you need to VM, and don't even address the Brown Shoe Army event.

Your first post theorized and suggested that we have not reached the point where US troops fire on US civilians. I merely pointed out we reached that point decades ago. US troops will indeed fire on US civilians.
Thats not much of an answer to the relative comments abut your use of Kent State as an example.
 
Militia is the term used for a defense force comprised of ordinary citizens and well regulated means trained and equipped. What is equally important, in the context of the 2A, is whether the people refers to only those people currently (or likely to be) engaged in militia activities.

Everywhere in the Constitution "the people" refers to ordinary citizens. That has been accepted by the courts from day one. For some reason you think the term only refers to militia members in this case?
 
The Second Amendment to the Constitution: "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."

Please focus on only the three words on bold. No thing else, no other part. What do they mean? Is their meaning clear, or open to interpretation?

Is a militia the people in general, or is it a state-sponsored organized and approved government body? Does the fact that "Militia" is capitalized lean toward an organized government body (as a formal name, essentially), or is that irrelevant? Maybe just grammatical peculiarities of the day.

If you believe their meaning is clear, why do many people have other definitions? Are they being dishonest and/or insincere?

Thoughts?

I know I'm coming into this late (just joined the forum) but here are my thoughts:

"Well regulated", when used in a martial context, means properly equipped and functioning as expected. Even today, when someone has a firearm that shoots to the correct point of aim, then it is said that the sights are "properly regulated."

During the War of 1812 there were a number of critical battles where the brunt of the fighting was borne by militia units instead of Army units. Dispatches from the field complimented the militiamen's "fine regulation"; i.e. they were praising their courage, skill at arms, and discipline under fire, NOT how well the government had controlled them!

I am well-equipped, trained, and practiced with my personal defensive equipment. I am, in the Constitutional sense, "well-regulated."
 
During the War of 1812 there were a number of critical battles where the brunt of the fighting was borne by militia units instead of Army units. Dispatches from the field complimented the militiamen's "fine regulation"; i.e. they were praising their courage, skill at arms, and discipline under fire, NOT how well the government had controlled them!

It goes even deeper than that.

In 1792, there were 2 different Militia Acts. The first (2 May 1792) authorized the President to call up the militias of the various states in the event of invasion, rebellion, or disaster.

6 days later on 8 May 1792 the second Militia Act was enacted. That Act conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company (this was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages of 18 and 54 in 1862). So once again, the Militia was composed of every adult male citizen, not just individuals who decided to join.

And every 6 months every male member of the militia had to appear to a bi-annual muster with the following items:

"A musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack."

This was the state of things until the Militia Act of 1903, which created the National Guard and Army Reserve we have today.

But even until the Spanish-American War you had individuals form their own militias, then offer their services to the US Government. Most of the units in the Civil War started that way. And as late as 1898 you had the 1st United States Volunteer Cavalry Regiment. More famously known as the "Rough Riders", this was a unit created by Theodore Roosevelt, and then offered to the Government for service. Teddy was then placed as second in command after it was accepted, and Colonel Leonard Wood was placed in command.

Interesting side note. In 1917 after the US entered WWI, Congress authorized President Roosevelt to raise 4 divisions of volunteers to fight in the war. However, the Secretary of War opposed this action, and President Wilson opposed it as well. The recruitment of the first Regiment was already under way, and command was offered to Colonel Charles Young (the senior black Officer in the Army). Young had already been forced to resign, when higher Army officers realized that if he went to Europe in command of Black soldiers, his rank would guarantee that he would be promoted to Brigadier General, and white troops would be placed under his command.

All of that ultimately made the idea political poison, and it was ultimately scrapped in late 1917.
 
The Second Amendment to the Constitution: "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."

Please focus on only the three words on bold. No thing else, no other part. What do they mean? Is their meaning clear, or open to interpretation?

Is a militia the people in general, or is it a state-sponsored organized and approved government body? Does the fact that "Militia" is capitalized lean toward an organized government body (as a formal name, essentially), or is that irrelevant? Maybe just grammatical peculiarities of the day.

If you believe their meaning is clear, why do many people have other definitions? Are they being dishonest and/or insincere?

Thoughts?

They were stating why a well regulated militia is necessary. Nothing more. It is up to the people to determine how well and regulated they need to be armed to defend against an overbearing authorative threat.
 
A well-regulated militia is a requirement for a healthy free state. The militia could be the last defense in case lets say the US military is destroyed. Again just saying.
 
The Second Amendment to the Constitution: "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."

Please focus on only the three words on bold. No thing else, no other part. What do they mean? Is their meaning clear, or open to interpretation?

Is a militia the people in general, or is it a state-sponsored organized and approved government body? Does the fact that "Militia" is capitalized lean toward an organized government body (as a formal name, essentially), or is that irrelevant? Maybe just grammatical peculiarities of the day.

If you believe their meaning is clear, why do many people have other definitions? Are they being dishonest and/or insincere?

Thoughts?

The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary.

Well regulated must be defined by our federal Congress.
 
A well-regulated militia is a requirement for a healthy free state. The militia could be the last defense in case lets say the US military is destroyed. Again just saying.

We already have a well regulated militia. It's called the National Guard.

The modern Army National Guard traces its origins to 13 December 1636, the day the Massachusetts Bay Colony's General Court passed an act calling for the creation of three regiments by organizing existing separate militia companies in the towns around Boston.[2] The creation of the militia regiments was caused by the perceived need to defend the Bay Colony against American Indians, as well as colonists and military members from other European countries who were operating in North America, including: the French in what is now Canada; the Spanish in what is now Florida, The Carolinas, and Georgia; and the Dutch in what was then New Netherland, which comprised what is now parts of New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts.[3][4]

The General Court required that all able-bodied men between ages 16 and 60, except judges and clergy members, be considered members of the colony's militia, which was organized as the North, South, and East Regiments. Militia members were required to equip themselves, take part in regular training, and report to their units when called.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_US_Army_National_Guard
 
However, I do know people who believe it means the government's military, and I know these people personally and I also know them to be absolutely sincere in their beliefs. They claim that the words "well regulated" means government sponsored and approved, because, well, who else would 'regulate'?

I wholly disagree with them, but I do not question the sincerity of their position.

In the usage of the times, 'regulated' did refer to training.

Well, I think the position of "regulation" being the job of the government has some support other than just some people's opinion. The Millitia Act of 1792, passed the year after the ratification of the 2nd Amendment, put the responsibility of keeping the militias well regulated and trained on the state legislatures. The militias themselves were then under the command of the commander-in-chief, IOW, the POTUS. In fact, the first use of these well regulated and trained militias was by George Washington himself, to put down a tax rebellion in PA.

Militia members who would disobey the state legislatures or the POTUS could face court martial. These founding fathers were not fooling around when they talked about beign "well regulated". They clearly meant business with these militias. Reading these militia acts, it becomes clear that they did not have in mind these paranoid middle aged weekend warriors we have now who are stocking up to fight a potentially tyrannical federal government.

The first Act, passed May 2, 1792, provided for the authority of the president to call out the militias of the several states, "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe".[3] The law also authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act".[4] This provision likely referred to uprisings such as Shays' Rebellion...

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages of 18 and 54 in 1862.)

Militia members, referred to as "every citizen, so enrolled and notified", "...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[5] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen.

The militias were divided into "divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies" as the state legislatures would direct.[6] The provisions of the first Act governing the calling up of the militia by the president in case of invasion or obstruction to law enforcement were continued in the second act.[7] Court martial proceedings were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed any orders or regulations.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
 
States have State militias that are separate from the National Guard.

Not THAT separate. There is a fair amount of cross-over and overlap.

State defense forces (SDF; also known as state military, state guards, or state military reserves) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government; they are partially regulated by the National Guard Bureau but they are not a part of the Army National Guard of the United States.[1] State defense forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state.

All state National Guard personnel (to include the National Guard of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the territories of Guam and the Virgin Islands) can be federalized under the National Defense Act of 1933 with the creation of the National Guard of the United States. This provides the basis for integrating units and personnel of the Army National Guard into the U.S. Army and, since 1947, units and personnel of the Air National Guard into the U.S. Air Force.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

And besides, now you are talking about regulation by the state government. That's still a government. The assertion was made earlier that some "sincere" or well-meaning people wrongly thought that well regulated did not mean it was to be regulated through some kind of government. Historically, those have been the only well regulated militias.

In fact, by definition, any form of regulation necessarily means there has to be some kind of governing body.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom