Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

"... being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A place to discuss regulation, proposed or enacted.

Moderators: admin, Inquisitor, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

Message
Author
YankeeTarheel
Loquacious
Posts: 3329
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#26 Post by YankeeTarheel » Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:00 pm

inomaha wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 12:52 pm
Why is it the second gets this sort of review and not the other amendments in the bill of rights? I say it's only because people are making a specious claim in an effort to undermine it. Apply any of the same logic to the other amendments and it would be dismissed out of hand.

You're only allowed to exercise your free speech if you get a university degree that includes proper English courses.

You're only allowed the freedom of religion if you've gone to divinity courses.

You don't have to quarter military members if you've proven you're a valid citizen of good standing.

etc., etc.

The Bill of Rights are individual rights of the citizens, not to be restricted by the state, the only reason to believe otherwise and to pick away with semantics is because the person wants to take a way the rights of individuals protected by the constitution without going through the impossible task of a constitutional amendment.

They would have never bothered to draft the Bill of Rights except they new people would at some time pervert the constitution and forget that it's purpose was to restrict the state and not the individual. If you view the constitution from that aspect, that if in doubt, the individual is always above the group, everything makes more sense and you begin to see the ulterior motives of the authoritarians. The 2A is not the only under attack and will not be the last.
The explanation is simple. Bullets kill. Speech doesn't, even if you have really, Really, REALLY bad breath!
Religion DOES have restrictions--ancient Jews were summoned to sacrifice animals to their God. They can't do that. Polygamy and Polyandry are outlawed, as is, clearly human sacrifice.
Speech has restrictions and limitations, both civil and criminal.
Even in Heller, Scalia stated that NO rights are absolute and all have limitations. That's established law.
"Fascism comes along when the rich people get the generals to help them stay in control." -- Woody Guthrie
My son says: "Don't argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!" -- YT

YankeeTarheel
Loquacious
Posts: 3329
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#27 Post by YankeeTarheel » Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:03 pm

CDFingers wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:37 am
YankeeTarheel wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:08 am

I think the argument that "Well-regulated" means merely "well-trained" is a really long stretch. While language has changed quite a bit since 1787, it hasn't changed that much. It's also totally illogical that they would have written a clause allowing for private armies outside the control of Federal, State, or Local governments. And, right from the beginning, President Washington was forced to put down such armed rebellions.
wrt to the regulation question, I would say that there were the Regular Militia and the Irregular Militia during the war. The Regulars wore uniforms, slept in tents, and drilled so they could maneuver effectively as a group. The Irregulars were the farmers and other rural folk who did not train often, as they were farming and so on. The Regulars were paid but the Irregulars often weren't. They wanted the Regulars to be well-regulated so as to ensure the security of a free state.

When looking at the Second, I think it important to explore what is meant by a "free" state. I see free vs slave, and that was and remains an influence block in Congress, a block which led to the American War of 1861. So, the security of a free state may in fact guard against the forces that eventually led to conflict in 1861. It is interesting to speculate whether the States' regulations with respect to their own militias lies at the bottom of "well-regulated" when we consider the slavery question and border states.

wrt the Fourteenth, both Heller and McDonald incorporated the Bill of Rights against the states, but we haven't see that enforced, especially in my state of California.

CDFingers
CDFingers, you gotta be kidding! Madison WROTE the 2nd and he was a slave-owner from Virginia! The idea that "Free State" meant free vs slave is ludicrous! Sorry, pal, but that just doesn't fly! Madison wanted, in part, militias to PUT DOWN slave rebellions--remember? Slave-owner?
"Fascism comes along when the rich people get the generals to help them stay in control." -- Woody Guthrie
My son says: "Don't argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!" -- YT

User avatar
CDFingers
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 16878
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#28 Post by CDFingers » Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:49 pm

YankeeTarheel wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:03 pm
CDFingers wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:37 am
YankeeTarheel wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:08 am


When looking at the Second, I think it important to explore what is meant by a "free" state. I see free vs slave, and that was and remains an influence block in Congress, a block which led to the American War of 1861. So, the security of a free state may in fact guard against the forces that eventually led to conflict in 1861. It is interesting to speculate whether the States' regulations with respect to their own militias lies at the bottom of "well-regulated" when we consider the slavery question and border states.

wrt the Fourteenth, both Heller and McDonald incorporated the Bill of Rights against the states, but we haven't see that enforced, especially in my state of California.

CDFingers
CDFingers, you gotta be kidding! Madison WROTE the 2nd and he was a slave-owner from Virginia! The idea that "Free State" meant free vs slave is ludicrous! Sorry, pal, but that just doesn't fly! Madison wanted, in part, militias to PUT DOWN slave rebellions--remember? Slave-owner?
This is why I used the verb "to explore." There are lots of interpretations, such as "free" from tyranny, such as the Brits being expelled, where we have seen after that, that the central government could come in and suppress a rebellion against a booze tax. Also land "free" for the taking describes the genocide then under way where superior weapons technology could be used to exterminate or expel the native inhabitants from the land. It might be that "free" state means a place where citizens may live under those laws freely. When the population is armed, it's tough to disarm them, so maybe Madison thought it best to codify the RKBA, something he could not fight. Live free or die. A short but interesting amendment with lots of scholarship around it.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments muddy things up, so I interpret them to say that citizens may have rights that are not listed, and that states may make what ever laws they want, but then the SCOTUS will say whether they're constitutional--again, California has had two laws made by the People over turned as being unconstitutional. Ultimately the Court must clarify the meaning of the Second.

CDFingers
ImageImage
There may come a day I will dance on your grave
If unable to dance, I will crawl across it
Unable to dance, I'll still crawl.

YankeeTarheel
Loquacious
Posts: 3329
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#29 Post by YankeeTarheel » Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:35 pm

CDFingers wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:49 pm
YankeeTarheel wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:03 pm
CDFingers wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:37 am
YankeeTarheel wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:08 am


When looking at the Second, I think it important to explore what is meant by a "free" state. I see free vs slave, and that was and remains an influence block in Congress, a block which led to the American War of 1861. So, the security of a free state may in fact guard against the forces that eventually led to conflict in 1861. It is interesting to speculate whether the States' regulations with respect to their own militias lies at the bottom of "well-regulated" when we consider the slavery question and border states.

wrt the Fourteenth, both Heller and McDonald incorporated the Bill of Rights against the states, but we haven't see that enforced, especially in my state of California.

CDFingers
CDFingers, you gotta be kidding! Madison WROTE the 2nd and he was a slave-owner from Virginia! The idea that "Free State" meant free vs slave is ludicrous! Sorry, pal, but that just doesn't fly! Madison wanted, in part, militias to PUT DOWN slave rebellions--remember? Slave-owner?
This is why I used the verb "to explore." There are lots of interpretations, such as "free" from tyranny, such as the Brits being expelled, where we have seen after that, that the central government could come in and suppress a rebellion against a booze tax. Also land "free" for the taking describes the genocide then under way where superior weapons technology could be used to exterminate or expel the native inhabitants from the land. It might be that "free" state means a place where citizens may live under those laws freely. When the population is armed, it's tough to disarm them, so maybe Madison thought it best to codify the RKBA, something he could not fight. Live free or die. A short but interesting amendment with lots of scholarship around it.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments muddy things up, so I interpret them to say that citizens may have rights that are not listed, and that states may make what ever laws they want, but then the SCOTUS will say whether they're constitutional--again, California has had two laws made by the People over turned as being unconstitutional. Ultimately the Court must clarify the meaning of the Second.

CDFingers
I dunno. I think in the context of the time the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written, "Free State" has a meaning that is pretty obvious and compelling. It's not metaphysical at all, and they were talking about citizens (which slaves were not recognized as) of states that engaged in self-rule, who elected their leaders, and didn't have authority imposed on their states by tyrants or outsiders. Remember, too, that until after the Civil War, it was "These United States" after which it became "The United States", from a collection of self-ruling states voluntarily joining together, morphing into a nation, after 1865, where states were more like provinces than independent entities.
"Fascism comes along when the rich people get the generals to help them stay in control." -- Woody Guthrie
My son says: "Don't argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!" -- YT

User avatar
Evo1
Grizzled Veteran
Posts: 978
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#30 Post by Evo1 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:56 pm

Two problems with the logic of the original post. The first, as has already been pointed out, is in the meaning of 'well-regulated'. In this context, it does not mean 'controlled by a regulating authority'.

Far more fundamentally though is that the only thing that 'well-regulated' refers to in the Amendment is the militia itself, not the right to keep and bear arms. No possible logical reading based on any accepted linguistic convention in the English language would have it mean that. The militia itself, in terms of organization, participation, drilling, etc., was meant to be 'well-regulated'. The fact that the Founders believed such an organization to be central to the maintenance of a free state is merely the justification for why they believed the basic personal right to keep and bear arms deserved protection. So, unless you plan on participating in any organized militia activity, you need not worry about the meaning of the phrase 'well-regulated', or what agency regulates the militia, in order to otherwise exercise your rights under the 2nd Amendment. Your private right to own firearms, or to carry a firearm for personal defense, is not a militia activity or part of militia service, and therefore not touched by the phrase 'well-regulated' in the Amendment. It is instead touched by the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

User avatar
NoEyeDeer
Helpful Contributor
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#31 Post by NoEyeDeer » Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:48 pm

methodmissing wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:42 am
http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
This is the sense of "well-regulated" in the parlance of the times. Meaning "Well-functioning", "operating to specification", "possessing all necessary features and faculties."
Quite correct, and may I also add to the list "adequately supplied".

User avatar
SilasSoule
Chatty
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:30 am
Location: Live overseas, own a little land in northern Nevada.
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#32 Post by SilasSoule » Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:02 am

YankeeTarheel wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:08 am

I think the argument that "Well-regulated" means merely "well-trained" is a really long stretch. While language has changed quite a bit since 1787, it hasn't changed that much. It's also totally illogical that they would have written a clause allowing for private armies outside the control of Federal, State, or Local governments. And, right from the beginning, President Washington was forced to put down such armed rebellions.
If the British government had directly controlled colonial militias, the revolution would probably not have been possible. So why would the founders insist that only government-controlled militias were covered when they wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment? And if that is what they intended, why wouldn't they explicitly state that?

True, these militias mostly were controlled by the town or local governments, but not everyone supported the revolution, so it was not certain who was going to show up or if the town's militia would participate at all. Basically, the militias that fought the British were made up of people who favored independence.

"In October of 1774, following the lead of the Worchester County Convention, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress called upon all militia officers to resign their commissions under the old Royal Government and for new elections to be held. This effectively purged the officer corps of loyalists.

They also called upon the towns (most of which supported one or more companies of militia) to set aside a portion of its militia and form them into new, special companies called minute men.

Minute Men were different from the militia in the following ways:

While service in the militia was required by law, minute men were volunteers.
The minute men trained far more frequently than the militia. Two or three times per week was common. Because of this serious commitment of time, they were paid. One shilling per drill was average. Militia only trained once every few months (on average) and were paid only if they were called out beyond their town, or formed part of an expedition.
Minute Men were expected to keep their arms and equipment with them at all times, and in the event of an alarm, be ready to march at a minute's warning - hence they were called "minute men"."

https://www.nps.gov/mima/learn/educatio ... te-men.htm

"No one knows for sure how many Americans remained loyal to Great Britain. John Adams, the Massachusetts political leader, thought that about a third of the colonists supported independence, a third supported Britain and a third supported neither side.

Today many historians think that only about twenty percent of the colonists supported Britain. Some colonists supported whichever side seemed to be winning.

As many as thirty thousand Americans fought for the British during the war. Others helped Britain by reporting the movements of American troops."

https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/r ... 54933.html
"When and if fascism comes to America... it will be called, of course, ‘Americanism'." - Halford Luccock
"Liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."
— Mikhail Bakunin

User avatar
TrueTexan
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 12582
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:28 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER: The "Crazy" part of Denton Texas
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#33 Post by TrueTexan » Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:31 pm

We have to look at the times the Second Amendment was written and the history before it. The men writing the constitution were all well educated and very aware of their history. They didn’t want a standing Army. Therefore they went with the idea of the “Well- Regulated Militias. These are the drilled and trained Militia. Very much a part of theBritish History going back to medieval period. with the English longbow yeomen. Henry VIII complained the yeoman were playing to much nine pins and not practicing their longbow skills to protect the country.

The idea of the militia carried over to the colonies since there was no real British army here until the Seven Years war or as we know it as the French and Indian war. The War of Independence left a very bad taste toward having a standing army and putting so much power in the hands of the Federal Government. So there comes the idea of the regulated militias under local control.

The second part of the Amendment the Right to keep and bear arms. Two very major things about this. the first during the start of the War the British marched on Lexington and Concord. They were not just after Sam and John Adams but the powder shot and firearms stored in the armories at those towns. Storing weapons of war at central guarded locations was common in Britain and the custom had carried over in more civilized parts of the colonies. By dispersing the weapons among the militia it is almost impossible for an invading army to collect them. also it means the militia doesn’t ave to meet at a known gathering spot to get weapons.

The other reason for the RKBA was due to at that time fairly current history. In 1745 the Scots rebelled and trigged to put Prince Charles on the throne of Scotland and England. It failed at the Battle of Culloden. Many of the Scots were transported to the colonies as bondsman other imprisoned may just killed. The British passed laws, to prevent any more uprisings, that forbid the wearing of the plaid kilts and also owning any firearms, swords, pike or any other weapons of war by the Scots. The British Army also became an army of occupation and plundered burned and destroyed much of Scotland especially the Highlands. Forcing much of the population to immigrate to the colonies.

With that as recent history for the framers of the Constitution I can see where they decided to have the second amendment as a limit on the power of the central government.
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -- Aldous Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer- Henry Kissinger
May you live in interesting times.- Chinese Curse

User avatar
max129
Helpful Contributor
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:35 pm
Location: Free State of Nevada
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#34 Post by max129 » Sat Jul 14, 2018 12:34 pm

@Evo1 said:

So, unless you plan on participating in any organized militia activity, you need not worry about the meaning of the phrase 'well-regulated', or what agency regulates the militia, in order to otherwise exercise your rights under the 2nd Amendment. Your private right to own firearms, or to carry a firearm for personal defense, is not a militia activity or part of militia service, and therefore not touched by the phrase 'well-regulated' in the Amendment. It is instead touched by the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.
I have learned a lot from this thread - thank you to all who have contributed. At a personal level, I am an unlikely candidate to participate in a local militia, so I can take Evo1's advice and ignore the first subordinate clause in the 2nd Amendment.

As a person who travels between permit allowing States, I still find the lack of common rules a trial, and a legally dangerous trial at that. While my permit allows me to carry in both Nevada and Utah, there are some very common cases where the 'regulations' vary.

The point of this original post was to promote some common desire with others. In that sense, it is a failure. No one seems to think there is any probability, and also, any common rule set would become a target in itself by the antis. After consideration, I think this is correct.
Image

YankeeTarheel
Loquacious
Posts: 3329
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#35 Post by YankeeTarheel » Sat Jul 14, 2018 8:34 pm

Silas you must remember: Everyone of those colonial militiamen were considered traitors by GB and would have been executed as such.

Because the ONLY acceptable excuse for treason is...winning! (Which the colonies did).
"Fascism comes along when the rich people get the generals to help them stay in control." -- Woody Guthrie
My son says: "Don't argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!" -- YT

User avatar
SilasSoule
Chatty
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:30 am
Location: Live overseas, own a little land in northern Nevada.
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#36 Post by SilasSoule » Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:12 pm

"We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."

Benjamin Franklin
"When and if fascism comes to America... it will be called, of course, ‘Americanism'." - Halford Luccock
"Liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."
— Mikhail Bakunin

User avatar
CDFingers
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 16878
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#37 Post by CDFingers » Sat Jul 14, 2018 10:46 pm

SilasSoule wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:12 pm
"We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."

Benjamin Franklin

Hence, "We the People." There's a rifle behind every third mobile phone.

CDFingers
ImageImage
There may come a day I will dance on your grave
If unable to dance, I will crawl across it
Unable to dance, I'll still crawl.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests