Meaning of "well-regulated"

As in, "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" (2nd amendment to the US Constitution).

It seems that when most people see "well-regulated," they think, "government-regulated," but the 2nd amendment was written in 1789, and there seems to be evidence that the meaning of "well-regulated" at the time was different; at the time it meant "well-trained" or "well-functioning," and did not have anything to do with government regulation.

Here are some articles on the meaning of it:

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

http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/regulate.html

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

I have to agree with these sources and I have to agree the amendment only makes sense in the original context.

An example of the phrase would be this:

To a well-regulated mind, death is but the start of the next great adventure.

It's a sad fact that many people think "well-regulated" as "government-regulated."

It's not as complicated of a phrase as people make it out to be. The "militia" they're referring to is the whole of the male population of age, that could be called into battle should the US be invaded. The Framers didn't intend for the US to be more than an isolationist nation with a relatively weak central government, so there was no need for a standing army (which, if you read many of the Framers' works, they did not trust, as they were frequently utilized on a given nation's own citizens).

The government was not only ALLOWING citizens the right to bear arms, in a way they were depending on it.

This summer I'm taking the course to get my concealed carry license. I'm excited :-)

Skippy, I agree with you. I've never understood why some countries (UK, etc.) trample on their citizen's rights by banning firearms.

BTW, what State do you live in?

It's probably because those countries never gave them that right in the first place. I'm living in Louisiana now but I grew up in Texas and went to college in California.

<<This summer I'm taking the course to get my concealed carry license. I'm excited :-) >

I thought there was a new Supreme Court decision pending that was going to allow states and cities to start banning private ownership of firearms.

It's probably not a good time to get one now, since you'll probably just have to turn it in to the government soon.

"I thought there was a new Supreme Court decision pending that was going to allow states and cities to start banning private ownership of firearms.

It's probably not a good time to get one now, since you'll probably just have to turn it in to the government soon."

Not true. You're thinking about District of Columbia v. Heller. If this has any real effect, it will probably be in favor of private ownership. As it stands, except in two federal judicial circuits, states can ban gun ownership.

This case is an appeal by the District from Parker vs. District of Columbia in which the D.C. Court of appeals ruled that the District could not ban handguns.

<<This case is an appeal by the District from Parker vs. District of Columbia in which the D.C. Court of appeals ruled that the District could not ban handguns. >>

If the Supreme court deecides once and for all that states can ban firearms, I suspect quite a few states will go ahead and take advantage of the situation. States like NY, CA, MA could easily make private ownership of firearms completely illegal.

"If the Supreme court deecides once and for all that states can ban firearms, I suspect quite a few states will go ahead and take advantage of the situation. States like NY, CA, MA could easily make private ownership of firearms completely illegal."

They could also just limit their ruling to D.C because it is not a state.

They're not going to. If you've ever studied American Constitutional law you know that the federal government has upheld the rights of citizens to possess firearms. Gun owners, the NRA, AGO, etc. are all excited about DC v. Heller because 4 of the 9 justices (Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas) we KNOW will vote for the right to have guns, another one justice is likely to vote for it as well being a strong traditionalist (Souter), and another because he is a firm federalist (Kennedy). That's 6 of 9 that are likely to vote in favor of the right to bear arms.

Furthermore there is some (though not much) precedence with regard to the right to bear arms. One example would be the infamous Dred Scott decision, in which Justice Taney claimed blacks were not citizens of the US, saying that allowing them citizenship would "give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

There's no doubt in my mind the Supreme Court will rule on the side of the people and allow us to continue to own firearms. Let's hope so, crime in the US is relatively high compared to other developed nations and forcing law abiding citizens to give up their guns (which, being law abiding citizens most probably would) so that only criminals would still possess them (or know how to get them for that matter). Every time this happens, crime skyrockets. Australia, for example, spent $500,000 buying guns back after making them illegal. After 12 months, homicides were up 3.2% and assaults were up 8.6%. Americans won't let this happen. In fact, Montana has threatened secession should the Court rule against the people and in favor of the government and take away our Constitutionally-guaranteed right to gun ownership.

<<In fact, Montana has threatened secession should the Court rule against the people and in favor of the government and take away our Constitutionally-guaranteed right to gun ownership. >>

It's not clear why Montana would object. A state would have the right to outlaw firearms, but nobody is saying that they have to. I suspect that Montana would continue to allow private ownership of firearms. I'd think states that want to outlaw firearms would be more likely to succeed if the Supreme Court says they can't.

"because 4 of the 9 justices (Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas) we KNOW will vote for the right to have guns, another one justice is likely to vote for it as well being a strong traditionalist (Souter), and another because he is a firm federalist (Kennedy). That's 6 of 9 that are likely to vote in favor of the right to bear arms. "

I agree with you. They will probably rule in favor of private firearm ownership. Just to make my personal position clear, I favor allowing private firearm ownership.

The reason I said it might be limited to D.C. is because the second amendment has not been incorprated through the states by the fourteenth amendment (Presser v. Illinois.) So they could overturn the gun ban without incorprating it to the states. With that said, I think that is unlikley and they will probably overturn as well as incorporate.

Judging from the current justices, though, I'm not sure that it will be incorporated. At least not this time around...

I'll predict that those 6 will vote in favor (although Souter may not); I can't see Stevens or Ginsburg voting in favor, Breyer maybe. Worst case scenario, 5-4 in favor of the right to bear arms, at best I'd say 7-2 in favor.

<Skippy, I agree with you. I've never understood why some countries (UK, etc.) trample on their citizen's rights by banning firearms>


School Shooting in the USA (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-02-school-shootings_x.htm)

•Oct. 2, 2006: A gunman took about a dozen girls hostage, killing at least three of them, at a one-room Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania's Lancaster County, police said. The shooter was among the dead, and a number of people were injured.

•Sept. 29, 2006: A 15-year-old brought two guns to a school in rural Cazenovia, Wis., and fatally shot the principal, a day after the principal gave him a disciplinary warning for having tobacco on school grounds, police said.

•Sept. 27, 2006: Duane Morrison, 53, took six girls hostage at Platte Canyon High School in Bailey, Colo. Morrison, sexually assaulting them and using them as human shields for hours before fatally shooting one girl and killing himself.

•Aug. 24, 2006: Christopher Williams, 27, went to an elementary school in Essex, Vt., looking for his ex-girlfriend, a teacher. He couldn't find her and fatally shot one teacher and wounded another, police said. Williams also killed his ex-girlfriend's mother, according to authorities. He shot himself twice in the head after the rampage and was arrested.

•March 21, 2005: A 16-year-old shot and killed five schoolmates, a teacher and an unarmed guard at a high school on the Red Lake Indian Reservation in Minnesota before taking his own life. Weise had earlier killed his grandfather and his grandfather's companion.

•Nov. 22, 2004: A 16-year-old is accused of fatally shooting one student and wounding three others outside Strawberry Mansion High in Philadelphia. The attack apparently was over a $50 debt in a rap contest. The teen is set to stand trial on murder charges later this month.

•April 24, 2003: A 14-year-old shot and killed the principal in the crowded cafeteria of a junior high school in south-central Pennsylvania, before killing himself.

•May 26, 2000: A 13-year-old killed his English teacher on the last day of classes in Lake Worth, Fla., after the teacher refused to let him talk with two girls in his classroom. He was convicted of second-degree murder and is serving a 28-year sentence.

•April 20, 1999: An 18-year-old and a 17-year-old killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 23 before killing themselves at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo.

•May 21, 1998: Two teenagers were killed and more than 20 people hurt when a teenage boy opened fire at a high school in Springfield, Ore., after killing his parents. The 17-year-old was sentenced to nearly 112 years in prison.

•May 19, 1998: Three days before his graduation, an honor student opened fire at a high school in Fayetteville, Tenn., killing a classmate who was dating his ex-girlfriend. The 18-year-old was sentenced to life in prison.

•March 24, 1998: Two boys, ages 11 and 13, fired on their Jonesboro, Ark., middle school from nearby woods, killing four girls and a teacher and wounding 10 others. Both boys were later convicted of murder and can be held until age 21.

•Dec. 1, 1997: Three students were killed and five wounded at a high school in West Paducah, Ky. The then 14-year-old later pleaded guilty but mentally ill to murder and is serving life in prison.

•Oct. 1, 1997: A 16-year-old of Pearl, Miss., fatally shot two students and wounded seven others after stabbing his mother to death. He was sentenced the following year to three life sentences.

Mall Shootings

Utah Mall Shooting
Annapolis Mall Shooting
Tacoma Mall Shooting
Salt Lake City Mall Shooting
Salt Lake City Shooting
Colorado Shooting
Maryland Mall Shooting . . . and so the list goes on

Here in the poor, citizen's rights-trampled UK, there has been two such incidents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre


Whose rights are being trampled on?

Please be aware that this discussion is regarding the wording in the 2nd amendment and its meaning. It has nothing to do with whether you think guns should be banned in the US, unless you are giving an opinion on whether the 2nd amendment would allow such banning.

(I do think that Ginsburg may surprise us.)