Meaning of "Well Regulated"

[tsafa]

The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment

From: Brian T. Halonen <halonen@csd.uwm.edu>

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.

http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm


Everybody get busy and start posting this info in every anti-gun blog you can find!!!

[BimmerJon]

SCOTUS is very clear on this....

Does not apply to guns... It means the "militia" would be well maintained.


Doesn't matter after Heller vs DC anyway

One does not need be in a militia at all to have firearms, its an individual right

[CenterTree]

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.

[tsafa]

SCOTUS is very clear on this....

Does not apply to guns... It means the "militia" would be well maintained.


Doesn't matter after Heller vs DC anyway

One does not need be in a militia at all to have firearms, its an individual right

I agree, but it is important that we explain it to ordinary people who don't even know the function of the Supreme Court.

People see the word "Regulated" in the 2nd Amend and apply modern vocabulary to it. We need to reach out to masses of non-shooters who don't know.

[BimmerJon]

I agree, but it is important that we explain it to ordinary people who don't even know the function of the Supreme Court.

People see the word "Regulated" in the 2nd Amend and apply modern vocabulary to it. We need to reach out to masses of non-shooters who don't know.

If they don't know the purpose of the USSC, I wouldn't even waste your time
Tell them regulated refers to a militia not guns and it's irrelevant since the USSC ruled the 2nd Amendment is reserved to individuals, not militias.

If they can't understand that.... Pat them on the head and walk away

[Mr_Gixxer]

Another thing I keep noticing is that people misinterpret the comma in the second amendment to mean that it is a separation between different subjects rather than a separation of different descriptions of a single subject.

[Boots_DE]

... Tell them regulated refers to a militia not guns and it's irrelevant since the USSC ruled the 2nd Amendment is reserved to individuals, not militias.

Ordinary individuals (like you and me) ARE the militia!

http://www.awrm.org/mission.htm

[Greywolf]

Another thing I keep noticing is that people misinterpret the comma in the second amendment to mean that it is a separation between different subjects rather than a separation of different descriptions of a single subject.

It is not a separation between two descriptions of a single subject. The militia clause is not a description of anything; it is an explanatory, non-binding, prefatory clause that has no effect on the body of the sentence. The words following the comma do not describe anything either. They make a simple, imperative statement.

[Mr_Gixxer]

It is not a separation between two descriptions of a single subject. The militia clause is not a description of anything; it is an explanatory, non-binding, prefatory clause that has no effect on the body of the sentence. The words following the comma do not describe anything either. They make a simple, imperative statement.

What I was getting at was the militia and the people in reference to the 2A are the same thing being described, not two different things.

[OldSchoolPC]

I agree, but it is important that we explain it to ordinary people who don't even know the function of the Supreme Court.

People see the word "Regulated" in the 2nd Amend and apply modern vocabulary to it. We need to reach out to masses of non-shooters who don't know.

If these leftists don't like a "split" supreme court decision on guns being an individual right, then I guess we can ignore Roe vs Wade now can't we?