- Thread starter
- #6,721
Not arguing...People or the officers of the militias that were appointed by the states at the time.In the case of the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated" meant in good working order, as in a well regulated clock. The founding fathers knew a disorganized militia would be but cannon fodder in the face of an organized army. They wanted a militia with officers with military experience and well trained, well disciplined and well armed and provisioned troops.
The word regulation is anyone who is controlling anything. There is nothing in the word that is intrinsically government. What government school gave you your crappy education?
A militia encumbered by silly regulations written by self serving politicians was not their vision.
I agree obviously. The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated." That it's in the Bill of Rights shows the answer to that is not the Federal government. And the fourteenth Amendment says it's not the States either. It's the people
I'm not clear what you're arguing
The officers were responsible for seeing that they commanded a "well regulated" militia. The officers were appointed by the States.
I didn't mean "arguing" that way. In the context I said it, what are you arguing means what point are you asserting, it doesn't mean arguing like heated debate.
So to put it another way, I'm not sure what case you're making. Are you saying government decides what a militia is and whether you are in one or not? According to the writings of the founders, the goal was to have every able bodied man armed and in a militia. That was driven by the people, not the State