In 1791 the meaning of “Regulated” was to be ready and provisioned, as exampled by the Minute Man response to the British forces. While the militia debate will be forever contested, the thing that must come to the top of all Second Amendment arguments. “The Right of the People” can only mean one thing. That it is our Human Right to OWN and Carry firearms, regardless of the firearm’s design.
No other Human Right is as restricted, taxed, and oppressed as heavily as the Second Amendment. The words “The Right of the People” is also the most misquoted part of the Second Amendment. Every time someone misquotes the Second it becomes less and less a human right. As firearm owners we must stress that it is OUR HUMAN RIGHT! Regardless of your personal opinion about militias, we must stand up for our Human Right as the people to keep and bear the firearm of our choice.
There’s actually no difference, from a legal point of view. And let’s be clear, when we’re talking about Constitutionally protected rights, we’re talking about laws.
Yes, how people understand words has changed. Folks in the United States used to speak English. Now we think that a “rock” is a type of music and a “gas” is something you pour into an automobile. But we can’t just toss the Constitution because you used the word “militia” in its worst connotation. That’s no different than those who argue that we should curb 1st Amendment protections because of hate speech and internet parodies.
What’s the intent here?
Not everyone owned firearms, so what else is being considered here?
Of what you posted; this was the avenue I was looking for you to bear out instead of just the right to own or carry a gun, there’s more. I’m very familiar with the 2d Amendment, but I’m also a “word” guy. Thanks for your post.
“A well-regulated militia would be a group of people who could unite together well and act as a cohesive unit. To protect against threats. Foreign or domestic.”
During Reconstruction (and well afterwards), black people in the South were prohibited from owning firearms by a variety of unconstitutional state and local laws. As a direct consequence, they were targeted by the KKK, a terror group that masqueraded as a militia and had the blessing of many local and state government entities.
If they had access to firearms, maybe black people would have been able to defend themselves from this militia.
Maybe that’s what the Founders had in mind when they referred to a “well regulated militia” in the 2nd Amendment. The ability of armed individuals to resist the tyranny of goons like the KKK.
Regardless of weather a person chooses to exercise their human right or not, it is still their Right. Just like the right to vote, it is your choice to exercise your right or not. Choosing not to exercise your right does not give you the right to destroy the Rights of another.
Torches and pitchforks?
You know, you actually raise an interesting question. What are “arms” protected by the 2nd Amendment? We always hear about the “common use” test, but the National Guard- the federally sanctioned militia- has plenty of arms that are not in common use, including .50 caliber machine guns, TOW missiles, and A-10 Warthogs. Could one make a good argument that these are protected arms, according to the 2nd Amendment?
What about my laptop? Cyber warfare is a real thing. Is my laptop protected by the 2nd Amendment?
@Mark697 Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from that period. 
“A Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.”
― Ida B. Wells-Barnett
Read more quotes from Ida B. Wells-Barnett
As a “word” guy you should appreciate that the founders used the word “regulate” rather than “provision” or “provide for” militias.
The 2nd Amendment does not read: “A well provisioned Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” But reads "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. "
The Founders’ choice of words is significant in my view.
Thanks for sharing Ida B. Wells. I hadn’t heard of her until now. Very interesting person.
Ida B. Wells - Wikipedia
I recall a gunsmith at Colonial Williamsburg telling me the King required every colonist (or family?) to own a rifle and a quantity of powder and shot. I guess that’s how the French and Indian War war fought by those “New Englanders”. Seems aside from rural folk who hunted for food and guarded against “predators”, even tradesmen, shopkeepers, and politicians had a duty to be armed as a citizen. just as necessary today.
This is true. There was a constant threat from French forces in North America, as well as Native American forces that could threaten more rural communities. There was also a minor threat from Spain for towns on the coast. In addition, small forces could be required to address domestic threats, such as gangs or river pirates.
Great Britain simply could not maintain enough professional Soldiers in North America to defend the entire country, as the American Revolution would later prove. Towns and villages had to be able to defend themselves, but also had to be on quick standby to defend their neighbors.
Militias were critical to “common defense” in this era. In addition, I like to point out that when the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791, the entire U.S. Army had just been decimated in Ohio. The responsibility for citizens to keep arms was no minor thing to Congress.
EXACTLY!!! ding, ding, ding, ding! Remember, during that timeframe not everyone had a firearm, and if they did, not all of them had ammunition. And for the most part you have to know that farming was the predominant livelihood. People had to use whatever they had while still exercising discipline and cohesion. Those were really rough and rudimentary times where most everything was fully articulated. Even that which was automatic was hand-cranked. lol. And a lot of what they did have in the remote areas of the fight was retrieved from dead folks. They had to scavenge. I believe we won simply because "the will to be free! Think about for a second…yup…I feel it coming…yeppers…there it goes. lol…
I totally agree with you. Just as a person has the right to do a thing, they have that same right not to. Which is also why I don’t spend my time getting upset with people because they happen not to see things my way! Freedom of choice belongs to all of us, may they yield reward or have consequences, it’s up to us individually what we each do or not do. It was that mindset that allowed me to wear our nation’s uniform and gladly present myself as an offering toward the cause of these freedoms that we so freely trample.
As in, the protection is about more than mere provisions, but the ability to effectively use said provisions as well
The People, that is, as the founders clearly stated the Right belongs to The People
If we had been of a lesser mindset and weak willed, they would have easily whupped us, and had us working for them. JMHO
Let’s take this a little further: How would a well-regulated militia function in today’s society? Let’s face it, assuming most everyone on this website has a firearm, we can’t even agree on things that pertain to just firearms. How would we even come together for a greater cause without a bunch of bickering like old men or women? Everyone in today’s society has an opinion and thinks they have to express it. Absolutely no one has the ability to follow a leader they don’t think is in control. Would there be an election to figure out who is leading the militia, nationally? What about locally? There are soo many things that are not thought about and the task would be very heavy for anyone to undertake. If they do try and develop a militia, how long before someone, or a group of people, label them as extremists and have them executed. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for standing up for what I believe in, but it just seems like we will grumble as things are lightly taken away from us year by year and sit back and talk about how things used to be while conforming to the new “rules.”
They did whup us, over and over again. But it was an unpopular war from the beginning, it was very expensive, the supply lines crossed the globe, and the Americans just wore them down. I’m sure you know this, but I laugh every Independence Day when some half-educated patriot-for-the-day brags about how “we” kicked British butt. Far from it. 