The Founders on the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: Indigo5

the word regulated back then meant
well disciplined and well equipped.

I prefer evidence to claims on a forum

The most relevant definition would be near the time the 2ND amendment was written. 1791.

Here is a definition from 1792 (With direct links to the dictionary)

To Regulate [Regula Latin]
1. To adjust by rule or method
2. To direct

Link to Dictionary 1791

a reply to: Indigo5


That would still place the authority to regulate in the hands of the states. Don't see where the Feds ever had any authority over arms anyway.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: Indigo5

the word regulated back then meant
well disciplined and well equipped.

I prefer evidence to claims on a forum

The most relevant definition would be near the time the 2ND amendment was written. 1791.

Here is a definition from 1792 (With direct links to the dictionary)

To Regulate [Regula Latin]
1. To adjust by rule or method
2. To direct

Link to Dictionary 1791

I like evidence too. Please point out a single firearms regulation or law written by the founding fathers that would confirm your premise that they believed firearms should be regulated.

Since we are talking about the Constitution, we can limit the search to those who signed this document.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Indigo5


That would still place the authority to regulate in the hands of the states. Don't see where the Feds ever had any authority over arms anyway.

That is one of the great ironies of the NRA et al. They claim that the Federal Government is without authority, that states rights trumps the Federal Government, but when the states choose to regulate gun ownership in any manner, like in Illinois...they appeal to the Federal Governments authority to intercede to over-rule the states will...the 2nd Amendment!

To answer your question another way...If the Founders did not want the federal government to be involved, they would not have included it in the Federal Constitution and the authority would have defaulted to the states.

They chose to both enshrine the right and to regulate it at the federal level. You can bemoan that reality, but if they had not, several states would have banned guns altogether by now as the federal government has supported the 2nd Amendment in court in States vs. Fed cases...far, far, far more than they have regulated it to any degree.

a reply to: Indigo5

I read every definition and every entry of the word REGULATE,
and then I did my own search of the word
REGULATED. See the difference? Hint (D).

I read every entry of the word regulated as well.

Regulated means disciplined, well equipped and orderly.

Link for you:

books.google.com...=snippet&q=regulated&f=false

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Indigo5


That would still place the authority to regulate in the hands of the states. Don't see where the Feds ever had any authority over arms anyway.

That is one of the great ironies of the NRA et al. They claim that the Federal Government is without authority, that states rights trumps the Federal Government, but when the states choose to regulate gun ownership in any manner, like in Illinois...they appeal to the Federal Governments authority to intercede to over-rule the states will...the 2nd Amendment!

To answer your question another way...If the Founders did not want the federal government to be involved, they would not have included it in the Federal Constitution and the authority would have defaulted to the states.

They chose to both enshrine the right and to regulate it at the federal level. You can bemoan that reality, but if they had not, several states would have banned guns altogether by now as the federal government has supported the 2nd Amendment in court in States vs. Fed cases...far, far, far more than they have regulated it to any degree.

Please read and truthfully seek to understand the PREAMBLE to the BILL OF RIGHTS.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: Indigo5

the word regulated back then meant
well disciplined and well equipped.

I prefer evidence to claims on a forum

The most relevant definition would be near the time the 2ND amendment was written. 1791.

Here is a definition from 1792 (With direct links to the dictionary)

To Regulate [Regula Latin]
1. To adjust by rule or method
2. To direct

Link to Dictionary 1791

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?

That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))

The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)

But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.
--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))

And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:

One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops
--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))

The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning. That description fits most closely with the "to put in good order" definition supplied by the Random House dictionary. The Oxford dictionary's definition also appears to fit if one considers discipline in a military context to include or imply well-trained.

What about the Amendment's text itself? Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or the proper amount of regulation [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia? This brief textual analysis also suggests "to put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.

And finally, when regulated is used as an adjective, its meaning varies depending on the noun its modifying and of course the context. For example: well regulated liberty (properly controlled), regulated rifle (adjusted for accuracy), and regulated commerce (governed by regulations) all express a different meaning for regulated. This is by no means unusual, just as the word, bear, conveys a different meaning depending on the word it modifies: bearing arms, bearing fruit, or bearing gifts.

www.guncite.com...

a reply to: NavyDoc

You might have not read my last post to you?

originally posted by: Indigo5

Despite repeated requests for original sources if not original arguments, you continue to be cutting and pasting others work absent links or sources, I will end our discussion now.

DP

DP

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: Indigo5

I read every definition and every entry of the word REGULATE,
and then I did my own search of the word
REGULATED. See the difference? Hint (D).


Regulated means disciplined, well equipped and orderly.

Link for you:
I read every entry of the word regulated as well.


books.google.com...=snippet&q=regulated&f=false

I went to your link and searched for the word "REGULATED" and found no definition.

I also don't know which year that dictionary is from?

I have, however, already provided definitions for "REGULATED" vs. "Regulate"?

regulated
REG'ULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.

1828.mshaffer.com...

Also Websters 1828
machaut.uchicago.edu...

originally posted by: spirited75

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Indigo5


That would still place the authority to regulate in the hands of the states. Don't see where the Feds ever had any authority over arms anyway.

That is one of the great ironies of the NRA et al. They claim that the Federal Government is without authority, that states rights trumps the Federal Government, but when the states choose to regulate gun ownership in any manner, like in Illinois...they appeal to the Federal Governments authority to intercede to over-rule the states will...the 2nd Amendment!

To answer your question another way...If the Founders did not want the federal government to be involved, they would not have included it in the Federal Constitution and the authority would have defaulted to the states.

They chose to both enshrine the right and to regulate it at the federal level. You can bemoan that reality, but if they had not, several states would have banned guns altogether by now as the federal government has supported the 2nd Amendment in court in States vs. Fed cases...far, far, far more than they have regulated it to any degree.

Please read and truthfully seek to understand the PREAMBLE to the BILL OF RIGHTS.

Why would you believe I haven't? Because you presume to have interpreted it differently? If so..provide quotes and interpretations? As well as what you presume I have gotten from it? Otherwise your post seems base rhetoric? If not insulting.

a reply to: Indigo5
Indigo, you have a world view diametrically opposed to my world view.

We will not ever reconcile the chasm that separates the two.

You want some form of government to "REGULATE" arms.
The regulating will be "infringements" in the peoples right to keep and bear arms.

The infringements have already attached themselves to the peoples right to self defense (keep and bear arms)

License to carry concealed
Permit to own an arm.
Required classes.
Registration fees.
Gun locks.
Storing bullets and firearms separately.
and the list goes on and on and on....

These are all infringements on the peoples inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

a reply to: spirited75

A very long cut and paste from Guncite.com...I have no intention of debating a cut and paste of a 3rd party website's retort page on gun-control. ATS is not for trading cut and pastes of other people's arguments. You are capable of making your own and providing links to evidence, not entire rambling arguments.

I do appreciate you providing a link to Guncite.com, as opposed to others who have simply cut and pasted the same material from there on this thread...must be a popular site?

Again...Guncite hasn't link-sourced it's singular cherry picked definition from a 1980 dictionary which has an "OBSOLETE"...their words...definition from a CENTURY before the 2nd Amendment was written.

The definition with SOURCE and LINK, unlike guncite.com, I provided was from the year after the authorship of the 2ND Amendment.

That said...it's the last time I will respond to a mass cut and paste of content not your own, from a site a dedicated to offering retorts to gun control advocates. If not against T&C, it seems just unoriginal and not worth time.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: NavyDoc

You might have not read my last post to you?

originally posted by: Indigo5

Despite repeated requests for original sources if not original arguments, you continue to be cutting and pasting others work absent links or sources, I will end our discussion now.

And you thus dodge my last point. As for the dictionary, myself and others have shown properly annotated references to the language of the time--as well annotated as any University research paper. You are the one who has arbitrarily declared that nothing is valid unless the original document is directly link able on the Internet, even though you, yourself can only produce a single and very limited document as such. Believe it or not, scholarly works existed before the Internet.

Your OPINION--not fact--opinion is that the writers of the Constitution believed that firearms be regulated. The evidence of their belief is in what they actually did. If they believed in regulation of firearms among the citizens, then you should be able to share with us the myriad of regulations the first congress voted into law. You can end this debate in a second--show us the regulations you claim they believed in.

We're all waiting.

a reply to: Indigo5

Look and research how the word is used in
addition to the definition in the dictionary.

a reply to: Logarock

What is convoluted about "the right of the people" or "A well regulated militia"?

It seems to me if they wanted only the militia to have the right to bear arms the 2nd amendment would read,

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.

The fact that "the right of the people" is even in that sentence makes it clear they wanted us to keep and bear arms.

a reply to: Indigo5

make some references to all the regulations restricting the keeping and bearing of arms that the framers of the constitution were referring to.

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: Indigo5

make some references to all the regulations restricting the keeping and bearing of arms that the framers of the constitution were referring to.

Yes. He said himself that he prefers evidence to claims in a forum. Where is his evidence to his claim that the founders believed in gun regulation. The militia act if 1792 was written and ratified within a year of the ratification of the Constitution. Surely they would have also found the time to write these regulations. Where is the evidence to back up his claim? There has to be a firearm regulation proposed if not passed by congress if this was true, yes?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Exactly.

With the statement against a standing Army, and We being the Militia, there could not be a Federal Controlling of Arms as this will by proxy, be a standing army.

Plus the whole thing of stating that the Militia will be "Well Regulated" and not that a "Well Regulated of Bearing of Arms".