What do the words "A well regulated Militia" in the 2nd amd mean to you?

We focus a lot on the second amendment in america obviously. We affirm the right to private gun ownerhip overwhelmingly.

Why do we always choose to ignore these words though in the second Amendment? And what do these words even mean to you?



IMO, anyone who wants a fire arm should also be REQUIRED to serve in the national guard at the very least. That to me is a well regulated state militia.

Why are these few words so ignored by the guns right activists though? Just inconvenient words or something?

 

I think the National Guard fits the description of a "well regulated militia."

 

They are introduction only.

Regardless of the militia intro the right of the people means the people which means individual citizens. It does not mean members of a select group such as the militia.

The reason for it was that members of the militia were drawn from the general population who supplied and brought their own arms. Therefore it is clear that the right to bear arms is not granted by the second but protected. The same is true for the rights enumerated in other amendments.

 

All men to age 60 should have an infantry capable rifle and be prepared to be called into the field by local authorities to defend the homeland, as when shots were heard around the world at Lexington.

 

"I'm 'well regulated'
I eats plenty o' fiber!"​

Some like to pretend the Founding Fathers were simply garrulous and verbose, tossing meaningless phrases into the Constitution that can be just ignored if deemed inconvenient.

Obviously, the Amendment does not mean the same thing with the preliminary phrase (the "ablative absolute") as it would have without it.

An ablative absolute is a phrase used as part of a sentence, but somewhat detached from the main clause of the sentence in the sense that it does not modify a particular word in the main clause. Rather, it modifies and sets the scene for the idea of the entire main clause.

The point to take away is this: the ablative absolute is not irrelevant in its sentence. Rather, it is absolutely essential to the total sentence. In fact, if you don’t factor it in, it is easy to distort the import and force of the idea of the main clause. The ablative absolute is an anchor, a pointer, a stabilizing bracket.

So let’s return to the wording of the second amendment. The main idea is this: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But the first part of the sentence tells us why people have a right to keep and bear arms and why that shouldn’t be infringed. It sets up a cause/effect relationship. People have a right to keep and bear arms because a well-regulated militia is necessary to keep the state secure and free.

Conclusion: grammatically, the ablative absolute limits the extent of the main clause. Able-bodied citizens were able to own weapons in case they were called up to serve as citizen soldiers in an emergency. Unless our Founding Fathers were grammatically ignorant, they weren’t giving carte blanche to individual civilian gun ownership as an absolute right in and of itself. It was conditional, and these days, the National Guard has supplanted civilian militias.

https://verbmall.blogspot.com/2017/10/grammatical-analysis-second-amendment.html​

 

Regardless of what the definition of a well regulated militia means it is followed by "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". That statement is absolute. It does not say that it is conditional on a well regulated militia. It is a reason to bear arms, but not a condition required to allow to bear arms. Meaning there may be more unstated reasons.

 

The "ignore" is only in your head. You lefties and your straw man arguments. Make crap up and then argue against it.

 

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."

- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788


"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

 

It means a militia should have regular order. The second clause is self explanatory.

 

They were grammatically correct and yes they meant this amendment to apply to individual citizens, not militia members.

The people means the same thing in the second amendment as it does in the fourth.

Just as the preamble to the constitution is not law, the militia clause does not establish a limitation on the right to bear arms.

You have to engage in ludicrous mental gymnastics to claim that it limits the right to bear arms. The amendment is clear and it places no militia requirement on the right.

 

It means in working order. That's how the term was used for decades before and after it was written. Additionally, that clause you're most concerned with is a prefatory clause. Prefatory clauses do not modify or alter operative clauses.
The operative clause is: " . . . the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "
See DC v Heller for a full explanation of the grammar.

 

,,, for the same reason gun grabbers conveniently forget the words, "shall not be abridged". Inconvenient words or something. The 2nd doesn't, in itself, apply preconditions to the right to keep and bear arms. The Democrats should propose the repeal of the 2nd Amendment as their 2020 platform if it's that important to you.

 

It means that at the time we didn't have an Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine corps or US Coast Guard.

 

NRA membership should suffice. They are a non-profit, so they fit the well regulated part and their members own firearms, so they can be considered a militia. Alas, requiring NRA membership doesn't fit the "shall not be abridged part".

 

You like to pretend that the amendment means the same without the ablative absolute as with it.

If that were the case, the Founding Fathers would not have framed the Amendment as they did.

They were not given to throwing in meaningless words.

 

Oh god, here you go again.. ABLATIVE ABSOLUTE! ABLATIVE ABSOLUTE!

The founding fathers were not writing a secret code that you need an English doctorate to decipher. They said quite plainly, keep and bear arms to protect you and yours from *******s.

 

They set the context up front and quite clearly: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

Some like to pretend their words are meaningless or do not exist, but they do exist and and they do have meaning.

 

Yeah, to keep us free. Free from the turds who would try to strip us of the rights needed to keep those freedoms.

 

As a gun owner and a proponent for gun regulations, I take it to mean that the people have a right to gun ownership in case they ever feel the need to form a militia, and if they form said militia, the group has to be well regulated by and not just vigilantes .

 

"Militia" in the US refers to all men capable of bearing arms in defense of the country. The 2nd points out that the right to bear arms belongs to the people, not just those currently organized in a state militia. That's the whole point of a militia. They become mobilized when they are needed but aren't in a constantly in a state of military-like organization in peacetime.

The 2nd says that we will sometimes need a well-regulated militia, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't not say anything about gun owners needing to be part of a government-regulated military unit during peacetime, it has never meant that, and the SC has never interpreted it that way. That's a pet, armchair theory akin to the way anti-immigrant rightwingers think that the 14th doesn't apply to the children of immigrants.

 

You can pleasure yourself with your insistence that the Founding Fathers were rambling incoherently when they specified the context of the Second Amendment.

Others respect their actual words.

 

Since so many of you do not like "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". as a stand alone phrase, lets look at it from another standpoint.

The second amendment does not say the people have to belong to the militia in order to bear arms. Neither does it say the well regulated militia has to be in constant existence. You can play with the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." and try to ascribe many meanings, but it is not written as an absolute. Even the word "shall" is an absolute. It means no exceptions.

However, the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". has only one meaning. As written, it is not conditional.

 

You certainly do not.

 

The federal government has way to much control or over regulating the state National Guard.

When it comes to defining the intent and meaning of any Amendment of the U.S. Constitution one has to use the dictionary that was being used at the time to comprehend the meaning of each word in the Constitution.

For example..."the right to bear arms shell not be infringed."

The Second Amendment doesn't say musket or rifle or guns but arms.
Arms back in the day were the weapons of war.

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


Militia
MILI'TIA, noun [Latin from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat, Eng. moil, Latin molior; Heb. to labor or toil.] The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.

 

It does mean the same without it,

They sometimes were given to doing that in fact such as the entire preamble