What do you think of this interruption of the 2nd Amendment "well regulated"?

Question

I can't say the source of this because of the website rules but it is beautiful.

"Well regulated - meaning operating well.

The common man is the militia here. Militia are non professional soldiers. A major reason behind the right to bear arms is to carry out the duties of a militia. According to the founding fathers writings they considered the common man to be the militia and wanted him armed well enough to be able to fight on a modern battle field.

The militia acts of 1792 and 1794 mandated every able bodied male own a rifle, ammo a knapsack and other equipment common to the soldier.

Well regulated is disregarded by both the federal and state governments who consider the national guard to be the militia. They are not. They are formally trained and equipped. It says US Army on their uniform. The founding fathers considered a large standing army “the bane” of liberty.

You know what the best thing about living in a country where you can own guns is? You can shoot back."

What do you think of this interruption of the 2nd Amendment well regulated?

Lliam · Accepted Answer

You're right. The founding fathers were opposed to a standing army because that implied that the government, not the people, was in charge.

Militia referred to the pool of able bodied men who could volunteer or be called up in time of need.

But militia also referred to a military unit. When the need to defend communities or the nation arose, and men volunteered to serve (temporarily), the militia was a well regulated military unit with commanders, officers and soldiers.

Militias were locally organized by citizens and not government. They were like posses. Sometimes they were merely groups of men who defended their towns and/or went out to destroy Indian villages.

Dargil · Accepted Answer

Here is how I interpret Amendment two.
Because a well regulated armed force, is necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, to defend themselves from a renegade government or foreign invaders, shall not be infringed.

The drafters of the Bill of Rights agreed in the Federalist Papers and the Supreme court does too.

RavVid · Answer

I want to make quite clear that at the outset I am not a US citizen. I'm Australian instead. It is your country and it is your rules but I would like to give an outside perspective. by the way at a point we had more guns per capita then you did.

Now I am a farm boy and guns have always been around as a tool. I love the precision of shooting a rifle and take pride in a tight pattern.

There are two problems with firearms.

First is that it is not sufficient to know how you should handle a firearm but you should have deeply embedded habits. Before going through a fence you should break a shot gun and put it through first (pointing away) then go through. It is not something you should think about but be a deeply embedded habit you have.

From youtube vids it seems that you guys carry firearms Davy Crocket style. It always causes a sense of shock in me not because it is not safe but it does affront my embedded safety habits. That's the point, someone is being unsafe and I immediately react to it.

What I think is a problem is that city people wouldn't use a firearm enough to form safety into deeply embedded habits. Here you can own a gun, get drunk and drive at about the same time of life. Better when shooting was taught much younger.

Second problem is nutters. It is people who kill or more pecisely nutters who kill. Nutters shouldn't have guns. The problem of course is determining who are the nutters that can't be trusted. There is no reliable way is the crux point and it is where I would deviate from you.

To be honest things have moved on quite a lot since 1776, 1792, 1794. Back then it was muzzle loaders and gov'ts couldn't afford standing armies so militias were important to be sure. It was useful to have citizens that could reliably load and fire a muzzle loader at least three times a minute - better six a minute - and have the discipline to stand shoulder to shoulder and receive fire.

And well might your Founding Fathers have been rightly suspicious of standing armies. There was the bad example of Oliver Cromwell governing England with the Model army within their living memory at the time and was clearly something to avoid. England certainly did not like large armies after that either.

But I would also suggest that times have moved on from when the US was a quite fragile experiment. Certainly a charismatic leader like Napoleon could take over a whole country back then. Certainly the armed forces of other countries still do.

I cannot imagine the Australian armed forces deciding to take over gov't by coup d'etat and it is equally hard to imagine the armed forces of any modern Western democracies doing so as the apolitical nature of armed forces is universal. Your Gen Patraeus made the point that he did not vote after making general - to be apolitical I assume.

The US has more protection than most countries with your national guard. It is deeply embedded within the civilian population, based on states and well trained & equipped. For it to go bad seems a stretch.

Australia had a strong militia culture too, starting with cadets lugging around 303 Lee Enfields at school (a fine American rifle by the way - thank you). It wasn't worth it. Training a recruit to take an aimed shot is one of the easiest things to do. There is the mythos of country boys being incredibly good shots but a cadre of
self trained riflemen is over rated.

In Australia we had 13 mass shootings in 18 years and it was clear that nutters couldn't be stopped be stopped from getting guns because nutters can present well. So we really did need to change the regime to de-nutter gun ownership. Not entirely perfectly because some nutters lured police to visit them a couple of days ago and opened fire killing two.

I know you aren't going to like my comments but they are well intended. Sorry for any offence.

Soteris · Answer

The original intention of the founding fathers and by extension the 2nd amendment was to entirely replace the need for a standing army because they believed that an armed populous was unconquerable by a foreign power and they also thought that a standing army is inherently "evil" in the sense that it would inevitably be used offensively to attack other countries by the government.

As such, the 2nd amendment was implemented to ensure that the MILITIAS had access to the guns they would need to replace the role of the standing army. This was not really about arming the general populous, they still saw a specific organized and disciplined group to be in charge of defending the country which would be the militias.

As such the 2nd amendment is both in spirit and in wording completely compatible with gun control which also existed historically because the alternative, that the people would have unrestricted access to guns, is only going to lead to social problems and crime.

Of course, this is purely academic. Their vision of what USA should be is far from what USA is today, most notably the role of the military. Furthermore, they are objectively wrong. Not surprising really, they were revolutionaries and they were pretty much by definition people who drank their own coolaid because that self-assurance is what revolutions are built upon.

No part of the 2nd amendment is relevant today as both the philosophy of national defense and technology of weapons have changed to the point where there is no comparison to the original intent and situation. However you twist and turn it, its a relic of the past and even then it is just a fragment of something that was never fully implemented and was never intended to work by itself.

Roxxy99 · Answer

Your interpretation is pretty much correct. The militia was to be trained and organized, hence “well-regulated”. Since one of the reasons for creating the militia was as a check on the federal power to raise an army, the federal government was prohibited from infringing on the right to bear arms. You’re also right that the national guard isn’t the militia. To my knowledge, no state has maintained a militia in over 100 years. It’s considered obsolete today, especially in light of the technology and hardware possessed by a modern army but individual states could still raise them if they chose to.

jshm2 · Answer

It's bullshit, of course and it's why Qanon fuckwits are all over it.

The "common man" doesn't know shit about war, economy, regulation, politics or scale. The premise of "militia" by the founding fathers was only until they got a widespread sheriff, military and law enforcement agency that the new republics government back then could source and control.

It never was meant to be something long lived. Mainly as "armed" meant "muskets" back then. They were fucking dangerous and would kill and injure their wielders as much as their intended targets.

The militia acts were more or less undemocratic grabs of armed civilians by the president. They were neither paid like a military or supplied like a military but were expected to die like a private military.

Your pop gun is no match for a missile, dumbass. No matter what gun you have, a military will always have better than any militia.

LiamJHayden · Answer

A clause given as  a  reason is not the deciding point. The right of  the people  to to keep and bear arms is at issue. As the 10th Amendment reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to  the people ." it is clear that  the people  are a distinct entity.

Cuminginside · Answer

Is it a awkward pause that's for damn sure. I think a better explanation would have been better but the words "well regulated" it's like the old Swiss clock it's working properly.

Pterodon · Answer

It is regulated. Not everyone can legally purchase guns

Exterminatore · Answer

I think it’s brilliant! Lol

joeldalton · Answer

Well equipped is the meaning i understand.

What do you think of this interruption of the 2nd Amendment "well regulated"?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

How do you feel about this in relation to the Second Amendment?

What do you think of this interruption of the 2nd Amendment "well regulated"?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

How do you feel about this in relation to the Second Amendment?

We're glad to see you liked this post.