Just thought this vapid, facile question needed a more balanced commentary than deep blue Santa Fe is going to offer, so I’m sharing it with you all.
The question can be asked in a couple of ways:
- How can the governed regulate or protect themselves from militias? (e.g., the KKK or the Proud Boys could be considered militias)
- How should militias be regulated by the state?
- How can militias be assured that they will be ready/armed if called upon to defend the state?
Well regulated means hitting the target.
I implore you all. Please look up regulating double rifles. It’s the process getting both barrels to hit where the single set of sights are aligned.
It’s not about regulations in our current use of the word.
You must first go back to the connotations and the time this was actually written. Many things during that era were referred to as well regulated. It could be pubs they could be libraries they could be museums or restaurants. Well regulated was used to indicate something was well supplied. A particular venture had all that was needed to perform the function intented. It was not about the laws governing the militia. It was that the militia was well-equipped.
Quite from the “author”.
Each time there is a mass killing, we — and the Supreme Court — need to ask ourselves what this has to do with a well-regulated militia.
Absolutely nothing in common, which is why one is a protected right while the other is a crime.
Typical easily answered question from the irrational left.
Hmm, the definition seems to be like shifting sand.
I think if you go back to the English of the day and see how it was used it would become more evident. As far as a firearm being sighted in I can see that if you restated it as well prepared to fire and performance function.
Yet it is readily apparent that not everyone, particularly politicians, believe in the “law of first mention,” nor exercise the care for proper synergy, hence the “shifting sand.”
I agree with you and I understand. For anyone interested there are numerous publications defining well regulated most of which I have found are stating that the militia meaning the general public should be properly prepared equipped and supplied to perform their duty to defend and protect.
Look up ! State Defense Forces, State Guards or Or Naval Militias. These are responsible to their states. It may give some ideas.
I respectfully suggest everyone interested in this subject read The Federalist papers at least those by Jefferson and Madison. It’s pretty clear when reading the publications of the times the 1700s that the militia was all able-bodied citizens. It was not a federal organized unit but citizens themselves who were expecting to be prepared to defend and protect their rights and country if the need arose.
The subject is a history lesson for those who wish to try and define the intent of the founding fathers. We have been bombarded for decades with misinformation about this subject by those who do not understand that intent was as much to protect us or allow us to protect ourselves from an oppressive government as well as foreign powers.
History is always a great source for the original intent.
What is a militia today and what was considered a militia in the 1700s differ. Consider these modern-day militias:
- The KKK.
- The Michigan Militia that Timothy McVeigh belonged to
- The Wolverine Watchmen, members of which attempted to kidnap/kill the Michigan governor
- The Oath Keepers whose leader Stewart Rhodes is on trial for activities associated with the Jan 6 riot in DC
There are several hundred more, each focusing on a particular defense fetish. I’m pretty sure the Founders would distance themselves from these groups.
Start here: [A Well-Regulated Militia - Pell Center] (A Well-Regulated Militia - Pell Center).
I not only agree Mark that the founding fathers would distance themselves from those who had taken the word militia or those who the term militia have been attributed to them by the press
To attempt to claim legitimacy for less than honorable agendas or in some cases take the term militia and turn it into a less than favorable connotation.
All of that said the Constitution uses that term and a effort should be made to understand clearly what it meant.
Yeah, groups can call themselves whatever they want, but it doesn’t mean they are what the words in their name mean. Consider the “Peace and Freedom” party, or the DDR, the “Deutsche Demokratische Republik.”
Just because someone calls themselves something doesnt mean they are that thing, ie; a democrat calling himself a patriot doesnt make him a patriot.
The amendment clearly states it is the right of the people…The founding fathers were obviously concerned about Federal tyranny using a federally controlled army against the people of each state or a particular state but it indicates clearly it is the right of the people for the purpose of protecting their sovereignty in each state.
The argument that the second amendment is a States right is a stretch in my opinion. It is the people’s right in order to protect their state and themselves. Anywhere the Constitution speaks of a state’s rights it is clear that it is indicated as a state right so why would they be ambiguous ln their statement in the second amendment?
“The Second Amendment reads thus: ‘A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ This prohibition indicates that the security and liberty against the tyrannical tendency of government is ONLY to be found in the right of the people to keep and bear arms in resisting the wrongs of government.” – John Randolph Tucker
Tucker was Attorney General of Virginia, and American Bar Association president. The above taken from his “Commentaries on the Constitution”, 1899. Tucker was elected as a Democrat to the Forty-fourth and to the five succeeding Congresses (March 4, 1875 - March 3, 1887)