John Smith wrote on Jun 27
th, 2016 at 2:44pm:
Raven wrote on Jun 27
th, 2016 at 1:54pm:
The thing is many Americans who argue that the government can not infringe a citizen's right to keep and bare arms seem to take out a couple of words.
Quote: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.
Regulate
verb-Control by means of rules and regulations.
The words regulate and Militia are in the first sentence.
To quote Toby Ziegler
Quote:I don't think the Framers were thinking of three guys in a Dodge Durango
that's where you get these sorts or replies Raven.
Panther wrote on Jun 19
th, 2016 at 3:02pm:
Oh,,& before you go spouting on about something....like the word
regulated......a cursory search would show you that word meant something very different (it meant trained, not government supervised or controlled) back in the 1700's.....& what it meant then determines it's interpretation today.....it's called
"Original Intent"......in Constitutional law it's everything....so chill sparky!
https://i.imgsafe.org/f487d37.gif[/i][/font][/size]
Original Intent holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it.
There is also Original Meaning which holds that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary, everyday meaning of the text to be.
The Articles of Confederation relevant to the discussion of militias is to be found in paragraph four of Article 6
Quote:but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage
Of course the Articles are not the supreme law of the land, they were superseded by the U.S. Constitution. But if we are to use Original Intent or Original Meaning arguments then they are quite important in the interpretation of that document.
The language in the Constitution regarding Militias
Powers of Congress over the Militia:
Quote:Article One
Section 8
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
Powers of the President over the Militia:
Quote:Article Two
Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
If we take the role of militias in the early history of the United States, including both before the Revolutionary War as well as the experiences of George Washington et al with the colonial militia during the War, and then also the parallels between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution regarding the definition, role, and functioning of the militia you find the term well regulated is not actually an either or proposition.
The term “well regulated” in the 2nd amendment actually encompasses both meanings of the term “well regulated” (i.e., “well regulated” as one might consider a clock to be, and “well regulated” as one might think of in a legal framework)!
“Well regulated” meant that State militias were to be well trained (i.e., they were to gather together and practice, drill, etc., on a regular basis) and that training was to be supervised by the States (i.e., the States were to appoint officers who were to oversee that training). (This was the clock-like aspect of "well regulated".)
But at the same time, “well regulated” also referred to the lawful power the Congress (which was comprised, after all, of representatives of the States) was to have over the State militias, that is, Congress was to promulgate and enact a system of rules governing the conduct and/or activity of said militias, as well as the legal authority the President would have over them when acting as Commander-in-Chief. (This was the legal aspect of "well regulated".)
In other words, the use of the term “well regulated” in the 2nd amendment wasn’t meant to be an ‘either-or’, ‘black-and-white’ proposition, it was meant to be an all-inclusive term that covered all possible aspects of the situation regarding militias.
Forum
Pages: 
Crazy Yanky gun laws (Read 36803 times)
