What Do The Words "A Well Regulated Militia" Mean?

[M14 Shooter]

The Constitution does say that the right to own a gun shall not be "infringed" upon by such laws.

The 2nd is not that specific. It says Arms, not guns.

This is correct - the 2nd protects a multitude of weapons, including all classes of firearms.

 

[boedicca]

In the era in which the Constitution was written, "well regulated" meant properly functioning or operating.

You should be able to provide a citation for this statement.

I've posted this in threads here over the years. A bit of historical dictionary sleuthing is summarized here:

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

 

[M14 Shooter]

And why do RWers and other Republicans like to ignore it?

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
/Thread

How'd did you calculate that one bub?

I didn't calculate it - I read the law.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Your question has thusly been answered.

 

[Kondor3]

The Constitution does say that the right to own a gun shall not be "infringed" upon by such laws.

The 2nd is not that specific. It says Arms, not guns.

arm noun, often attributive

Definition of ARM

1 a : a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm

Merriam-Webster dictionary...

Link: Arm - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And why do RWers and other Republicans like to ignore it?

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

/Thread

How'd did you calculate that one bub?

The Supreme Court so ruled.

 

[Wyatt earp]

They cannot explain the well-regulated part, and they also cannot show where gun owners have a privacy right pertaining to their guns.

Sorry, but the Supreme Court settled that issue, You do recall they ruled that the 2nd does in fact provide an individual right separate and distinct from belonging to an organized militia?

Just like coprations have personhood rights, its all a matter of who is sitting on the court, lets just hope the court get a tiny bit more libral and then we can have resonable gun control.

It's somehow inevitable that, when the leftist fanatics get desperate enough, they will tell us that a 51% vote in Congress can overrule a Constitutional provision... as long as the issue is one that leftists want.

The Constitution doesn't say we can't have gun laws.

You can have whatever gun laws/regulations you want, so long as they do not infringe on the right of the people to keeep and bear arms.

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to an abortion, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to go to church, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to report the news, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to vote, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to free speech, would that right be infringed?

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to keep and bear arms, would that right be infringed?

Do try to be honest.

lol what?

 

[Little-Acorn]

In the era in which the Constitution was written, "well regulated" meant properly functioning or operating.

You should be able to provide a citation for this statement.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-well-regulated-militia-mean.html#post7199021

Read.

Reading is key.

 

[Kondor3]

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

/Thread

How'd did you calculate that one bub?

The Supreme Court so ruled.

Second Amendment:

Relevant Supreme Court Rulings:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

The right to bear arms predates the Bill of Rights; the Second Amendment was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common-law, and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. Academic inquiry into the purpose,[1][2] scope,[3] and effect[4] of the amendment has been controversial[5][6][7] and subject to numerous interpretations.[8]

In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". This ruling has been widely described as ambiguous, and ignited a debate on whether the amendment protected an individual right, or a collective militia right.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"[9][10] but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.[11]

In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[12]

...

Majority Opinions filed by sitting Justice:

Justice Scalia, writing for the Court in Heller : "In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right":
Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right.[136]

-----

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, stated: Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.[138]

...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[Wyatt earp]

You can have gun laws, just pass it by the Senate and house.

It's somehow inevitable that, when the leftist fanatics get desperate enough, they will tell us that a 51% vote in Congress can overrule a Constitutional provision... as long as the issue is one that leftists want.

it can, already has. its up to the supremes to rule if its unconstituional, the stupid 1968 gun law stands and Chicago's ban on handguns went out the window.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to an abortion, would that right be infringed?

We do many of those things.

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to go to church, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to report the news, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to vote, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to free speech, would that right be infringed?

Almost all of those things are subject to limitation under the law.

Try to go to church in a condemned building.
Try to report on the news slanderous things that are not true.
Try to vote if you're under 18
Try to lie under oath

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

I take it that you are talking about the Right to Bear Arms ...................
Militia definition is equivalent to what you would call today "Fight Club".
Just a bunch of drunks, rolling up their sleeves and Bearing their Arms to show off their mussels in preparation for fighting competitions, it was just a sporting event ............. that's all, but now we have gun clinging fags/spin-doctors here in the United States that will spin the 2nd Amendment into whatever suits their interests.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Constitution does say that the right to own a gun shall not be "infringed" upon by such laws.

The 2nd is not that specific. It says Arms, not guns.

Oh. So I guess that means the government cannot forcibly amputate a person's arms.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Nope they can't take your "Bear" Arms ya half-fish........

In military terms of the day that would be cannons, swords, bayonets....

 

[Little-Acorn]

In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". This ruling has been widely described as ambiguous, and ignited a debate on whether the amendment protected an individual right, or a collective militia right.

Two funny things about this case:

1.) The part you quoted, ruled that military-style weapons are definitely protected. But the government has spent vast amounts of time trying to ban exactly those kinds of weapons (assault weapons) for years, in direct violation of the US v. Miller ruling... and are still trying today!

2.) When US v. Miller was heard by the Supreme Court, no one showed up for the defense. Miller didn't show up, his lawyer didn't show up, nobody wrote any "Friends of the court" briefings or anything else for Miller's side. (Miller was found dead in a stream bed a few weeks later, with four bullets in his chest). Only the government prosecutors showed up. The other side of the Courtroom was completely empty.

The prosecutors took advantage of this huge windfall, and read several flat lies into the record ( a. The 2nd protects only military-style wespons, b. Miller's short-barrelled shotgun was not similar to a military weapon, c. The 2nd only protected members of the military or militia etc.). Since nobody was there to refute them, the Justices rubber-stamped these lies into an Opinion that ruled against the absent Miller.

In case you were wondering why the government has been so carful to NEVER re-examine the Miller case, now you know.

 

[boedicca]

The 2nd is not that specific. It says Arms, not guns.

Oh. So I guess that means the government cannot forcibly amputate a person's arms.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Nope they can't take your "Bear" Arms ya half-fish........

In military terms of the day that would be cannons, swords, bayonets....

Yeah, right. Arms during the American Revolution did not have anything to do with guns.

Man, are you a moron.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

/Thread

How'd did you calculate that one bub?

The Supreme Court so ruled.

Rulings change.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I take it that you are talking about the Right to Bear Arms ...................
Militia definition is equivalent to what you would call today "Fight Club".
Just a bunch of drunks, rolling up their sleeves and Bearing their Arms to show off their mussels in preparation for fighting competitions, it was just a sporting event ............. that's all, but now we have gun clinging fags/spin-doctors here in the United States that will spin the 2nd Amendment into whatever suits their interests.

Would those gun clinging fags/spin-doctors include the U.S. Supreme Court, who ruled that the 2nd amendment protects your right to own and carry a gun whether you were a member of a militia or military group or not?

 

[Kondor3]

"...In military terms of the day that would be cannons, swords, bayonets..."

So "arms", back during American Revolutionary times, did not mean guns?

Uhhhhh... OK...

I'm not sure what they would have hung those 'bayonets' on top of besides guns, but...

And, without 'guns' during those times, I suppose our militia-boys at Lexington and Concord were using blow-dart-tubes that they pulled down from above their fireplaces, not flintlock muskets and rifles...

 

[BlindBoo]

"...In military terms of the day that would be cannons, swords, bayonets..."

So "arms", back during American Revolutionary times, did not mean guns?

Uhhhhh... OK...

I'm not sure what they would have hung those 'bayonets' on top of besides guns, but...

And, without 'guns' during those times, I suppose our militia-boys at Lexington and Concord were using blow-dart-tubes that they pulled down from above their fireplaces, not flintlock muskets and rifles...

I'm pretty sure muskets were considered arms too.

Two points for pointing out the obvious.

 

[Skull Pilot]

In the era in which the Constitution was written, "well regulated" meant properly functioning or operating.

You should be able to provide a citation for this statement.

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

 

[regent]

The well regulated militia is now the well regulated National Guard.