My 2A epiphany...

[TaePo]

I recently had an epiphany on the meaning of the 2A and why it was written in the manner it was.

“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.”

We all acknowledge that the second part, the main clause, clearly means an individual right. It seems to get muddled because of the first part or clause regarding ‘militias’. The individual right pathos is spelled out in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere where the Founders speak about the enumeration (not granting) of pre-existing rights in the Bill of Rights etc. and is even consistent with the Declaration of Independence.

So I have ever since been questioning why the Founders bothered so much with the first part or subordinate clause when an explanation was not really necessary.

The confusion has allowed proponents of gun control to declare that the 2A expounds a collective right for militias. Even on other boards, when wrestling publicly with the wording, I have noted that most pro 2A people discuss the need of arms and knowledge and ability to bear the same as rudimentary to a need of the militia, organized and unorganized. I happened to be somewhere in that camp but was not satisfied.

The Founders used the term well-regulated militia. What could this mean? Getting back to the old argument, having people armed individually by a firearm of their choice, need and affordability, there would be far too many weapon types to attain ammo and support with parts etc. So that would not be well-regulated. Maybe it had to do with military arts and firing and hitting of targets from individual practice? Maybe.

But a system that is regulated, what does that mean? A regulated system is a system that is usually bounded on at least two sides. By using scientific principles, the regulated system is kept within a specific band of performance. For example, heating systems in our homes usually use a thermostat to control upper and lower boundaries of temperature and a furnace / AC unit to attain and somewhat retain the desired temperature. The float switch in the toilet is another example. It begins to fill by opening a valve and when a mechanically predetermined level is reached, the valve is closed.

This got me to thinking about militias. Then I remembered the checks and balances are Forefathers placed into the constitution as safeties against tyranny.

There is only one point of view that one can have to make clear sense of why our Forefathers wrote the 2A the way they did.

They were against standing armies for obvious reasons. To provide for the common defense, they settled into the militia idea. We are all generally familiar with that concept. And because of this, we all tended to see the word militia in a positive light. After all, it was the Forefather’s concept to combat the evils of having and maintaining standing armies.

However, our Forefathers also recognized that a group of citizen soldiers could also be misused by the state or federal government. The 2A is actually an anti-militia proviso. Especially since the standing armies were already ruled as illegal the only threat remaining would be a militia style army.

In this light, my mind can finally feel secure in the TOTAL understanding of the 2A.

It keeps us free, mainly, from any militia abuses.



This supports what we already believed:

1) Individual right only.
2) Armies and Militias cannot remove firearms from citizens in times of
Emergency.

[TonyF]

“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.”

If your interpretation helps you that's fine.

However, my understanding of "well regulated" in its 18th century meaning implied that the militia was "well trained".

See http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

[Pa. Patriot]

If your interpretation helps you that's fine.

However, my understanding of "well regulated" in its 18th century meaning implied that the militia was "well trained".

See http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Ditto.
Trained/able and ready.

[awkx]

Especially since the standing armies were already ruled as illegal the only threat remaining would be a militia style army.

Actually the Constitution expressly gave Congress the power to keep standing armies (Article I, Section 8); the only limit was that "no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years" (i.e., Congress must actively vote at least once every two years to renew funding). The militia clause of the Second Amendment was, in part, thrown in to placate the Anti-Federalists who were concerned that the militia system would be abandoned in favor of a standing army.

[TaePo]

Actually the Constitution expressly gave Congress the power to keep standing armies (Article I, Section 8); the only limit was that "no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years" (i.e., Congress must actively vote at least once every two years to renew funding). The militia clause of the Second Amendment was, in part, thrown in to placate the Anti-Federalists who were concerned that the militia system would be abandoned in favor of a standing army.

Good point.

I must be mixing up historical reference or the Articles of Confederation. I could swear I remember seeing reference to "...except naval forces..." for projection of power overseas.

But then why not a "militia being necessary to the security of a state"? Somehow, well-regulated (militia) and free (state) are symbiotic or synonymous.

I am reluctant to accept well-regulated as meaning internally regulated only. It leaves a back door open as we are all aware. Thankfully the main clause puts it succinctly and I think everyone agrees on that part.

I was thinking the outer boundaries were upper limits provided by the raising, training and selecting officers and maintaining/using militias at the State level and then when pressed into Federal service granted by the Constitution and the lower boundary being met by two conditions 1) citizens themselves comprise militias and 2) citizens hold the ultimate power to resist all enemies, both foreign and domestic, so to speak.

I have a difficult time on training being well-regulated as the individual skill set is very minimal. There is squad, platoon, company, brigade etc. levels. Today we see more smaller unit tactics but in those days, whole divisions were fielded en-bloc (though smaller than today's divisions, I am sure).

I hope to be able to resolve it one day to my satisfaction. I am still vacillating and is why I open up for the comments.

Thanks BTW.

[Pa. Patriot]

I have a difficult time on training being well-regulated as the individual skill set is very minimal. .

Do a web search. You'll find a ton of supporting documentation including quotes from founders regarding "well regulated".

[awkx]

But then why not a "militia being necessary to the security of a state"? Somehow, well-regulated (militia) and free (state) are symbiotic or synonymous.

A standing army is sufficient for the security of a despotic state; a militia is not necessary to its security. However, the founders believed it dangerous to liberty to keep standing armies in times of peace. And an ill-regulated (ineffective) militia (like today's unorganized militia) is obviously not very good at providing security against foreign invasions.

I have a difficult time on training being well-regulated as the individual skill set is very minimal.

I don't think the phrase "well regulated" means only "well trained", although a militia being well-trained is certainly a part of it being well regulated.

The meaning of "well regulated" doesn't intrinsically have anything to do with government-imposed 'regulations' as we understand them today. An accurate clock is said to be 'well-regulated' regardless of its compliance with 'official' standards for its components. Likewise, a militia is said to be 'well regulated' if it can perform effectively and in an organized manner, like Switzerland's militia today.

[Tokamak]

Wow, brilliant analysis. I have read the second amendment thousands of times and never once interpreted it that way.

So you are saying that the 2nd amendment allows us to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves from the armed forces should they become renegade.

That makes sense in light of what was going on at the time. England had their militias in the US but they were used against the citizens when they were not fighting wars.

So if I could reword it to your way of thinking it would say: "We need armed forces for the protection of the US, but citizens have the right to be armed in case those forces should become renegade or in case those forces are used illegally by the government."

Did I understand you correctly?

[TaePo]

I was thinking that it is at least one facet of it.

There is a historical perspective but it seems rather weak to me. I will have to delve into it much further. But yes, that is one line of thought I was tracing.