I am using this blog entry to highlight my delight over something I read recently which should (but probably won't) put to rest the definition of "well regulated", as in "well regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment:
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.
For those in opposition to the natural right for you and me to keep and bear arms for any reason we see fit, particularly for purposes of defense of self, defense of family, defense of community, etc., the #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5 excuses used to prevent the possession of any firearm often comes down to the perceived definition behind "well regulated". In today's environment, "well regulated" tends to elicit thoughts of a governmental body at any level imposing a preventative measure of some kind (legislative, regulatory, judicial, etc.) to the ownership of, operation of, ingestion of, etc. anything the body deems necessary to reduce or eliminate said ownership of, operation of, ingestion of, etc.
These measures are maybe best exemplified by soda taxes, plastic bag bans, cigarette taxes among countless more. Perhaps those seeking to impose a preventative measure on gun ownership in America most often attempt to use the "well regulated" qualification when debating why the Founders supposedly meant only those trained by the state, or local municipality, in which they live with the state/municipality providing not only official military maneuvers training but especially the weaponry associated with it; basically what we might label an organized militia, of course.
On the surface, using the contemporary definition of "regulated", and inserting "well" before it, understandably evokes the belief the Founders must have meant a governmental body of some sort imposing a restriction on the ownership/use of firearms outside official militia use in the defense of, or training for the defense of, a US state or municipality. Herein lies the problem(s) with such a belief:
First: since the Bill of Rights, in which the 2nd Amendment exists, expressly prohibits the Federal government from exercising any power over the States, counties, cities, towns, hamlets and individuals NOT specifically enumerated in the first ten amendments, with the 10th Amendment making this stipulation abundantly clear: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.",
how logical is it for the Founders to have empowered the Federal government, even state and local governments, to enact limits on the ownership of the very items the Founders expected all able-bodied citizens of the country to use in defense against a possible domestic tyranny, let alone the defense against a foreign armed threat? The aforementioned "items" I reference can include none other than firearms!
The second problem with the misinterpretation of "well regulated" is, in my opinion, the most enlightening example of the definition of a word or phrase changing over time. I use the following text to highlight the contextual use of "well regulated" abundantly surrounding the time frame of our Constitution's writing:
Finally, The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." (other docs say “Major”)
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
.
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.
Logical comprehension of the text above requires any and all efforts to insist "well regulated militia" means anything close to the restrictive explanation anti-2A advocates regularly employ is a white-hot lie, to put it plainly. There can be no alternative outcome upon reading these historically contextual examples. To further strengthen the case against the anti-2A movement, the historical record, by way of the words of the Founders and others of the day, make undeniably clear the intention of the 2nd Amendment and who was expected to possess and bear arms and why:
- "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, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
- "The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)
- The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 26.)
- "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..." - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
- "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
- "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
- "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
In summary, the more I research the historical context of the 2nd Amendment, the more it becomes clear those who played a part in its drafting, debating, final inclusion and ratification meant for all able-bodied citizens of the country to not only posses but also physically bear firearms as they saw fit.
