For those that carry Guns and Overlanding

[CSG]

I don't advocate required training but what do some of you think "a well regulated" militia means? My understanding of that term in the usage of the day means something on the order of well running (like a well regulated clock). To me, that implicates some level of training in order to be well regulated in the use of a firearm. Again, I'm not advocating it as a requirement to exercise our constitutionally guaranteed rights but it's something to ponder IMO.

An interesting article about this phrase and the intent of the framers:

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

 

[Umbrarian]

I don't advocate required training but what do some of you think "a well regulated" militia means?

It means what it says, and nowhere in the 2A does it say only a well-regulated militia can have arms. It merely points out a well-regulated militia is a necessary thing for a free State, by by no means does it require it.

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.

 

[CSG]

I'll ask again, what does "well regulated" mean in the context of the 18th century? I didn't say anything like what you just wrote. And saying it "means what it says" tells me you don't know what was meant by the framer's using that specific term. Heck, I even linked a legal brief to help out.

 

[dwh]

I'll ask again, what does "well regulated" mean in the context of the 18th century? I didn't say anything like what you just wrote. And saying it "means what it says" tells me you don't know what was meant by the framer's using that specific term. Heck, I even linked a legal brief to help out.

It means "regulars" as opposed to "irregulars". In the constitution, a well regulated militia is a state army (National Guard) which is supplied, organized and trained to the standards of a "regular" army, rather than a bunch of armed citizens who grab their guns to deal with an immediate situation (irregulars).

Militia means state army or what we call National Guard. The constitution requires the Federal Govt. to supply and pay the state militias, but the state governments appoint the officers.

There is no question as to what "well regulated" means, nor as to what "militia" means.

Standing armies being evil, but necessary, the states have their own professional armies to serve several purposes. To fight along side the federal army if needed. To fight against the federal army if needed.

As part of the system of checks and balances, the state armies together are supposed to equal the federal army.

Whichever side the armed citizens support will win. The armed citizenry is the ultimate deciding factor, and the ultimate power.

 

[dwh]

A well trained, well organized, professional state army, being necessary to the security of a free state or federation, but also being a standing army which is a threat to the liberty of the people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purpose of killing their own armies shall not, ever, for any reason, be limited.

 

[Matt.H]

I don't advocate required training but what do some of you think "a well regulated" militia means? My understanding of that term in the usage of the day means something on the order of well running (like a well regulated clock). To me, that implicates some level of training in order to be well regulated in the use of a firearm. Again, I'm not advocating it as a requirement to exercise our constitutionally guaranteed rights but it's something to ponder IMO.

An interesting article about this phrase and the intent of the framers:

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

A well trained, well organized, professional state army, being necessary to the security of a free state or federation, but also being a standing army which is a threat to the liberty of the people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purpose of killing their own armies shall not, ever, for any reason, be limited.

Nice paraphrasing, dwh. The problem the founding fathers had was how to keep each right short and sweet so as not to be misinterpreted. Intentionally or not.

I find this one works.

 

[dwh]

Yea, the comma. That's there for a reason.

The first part of the second amendment guarantees that the state governments, collectively, have equal military power to the federal government.

Then the comma.

Then the second part of the second amendment guarantees that the people will have more power than the federal or state governments.





The armed citizenry is the final and ultimate check in the system of checks and balances.

 

[CSG]

Interesting interpretations.

 

[Umbrarian]

I'll ask again, what does "well regulated" mean in the context of the 18th century?

And I'll answer again, "it means what it says".

And saying it "means what it says" tells me you don't know what was meant by the framer's using that specific term.

And saying the above tells me you do not have a dictionary:

reg·u·late
ˈreɡyəˌlāt/
verb
past tense: regulated; past participle: regulated

1. control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.

 

[CSG]

Finally. You looked it up. Good for you!

 

[Umbrarian]

Finally. You looked it up. Good for you!

No I already knew. But for fun, here is the definition from Johnson's dictionary published in 1755

 

[DiploStrat]

Always worth putting things in context:


"Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

...

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;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

"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; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

... "

(emphasis added)

You can argue about many things, but it is very clear that the militia was always understood to be an organized and disciplined organ of the government, under the control of the Congress and the President, and not a self constituted group. Indeed, the duty of the militia was specifically to suppress the actions of such groups. And that is how it was used on several occasions. Today, the various Militia Acts provide the justification for the draft.

The idea that the militia was intended to participate in an insurrection against the Congress, when both are "regulated" by Congress, is silly. FWIW, the United States did not have a standing army, or navy for that matter. The Constitution still prohibits appropriating funds for the military for more than one year.

Now, for giggles, research George Washington's comments on the utility of the militia and why he favored a formal army. The problem was that people did not want to be in the militia, at least not when there was work to be done at home.

Look it up for yourself. Ref: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#page-header

 

[Dalko43]

Always worth putting things in context:

And yet, you seem to be missing a large piece of context as it relates to the 2nd Amendment.

(emphasis added)

You can argue about many things, but it is very clear that the militia was always understood to be an organized and disciplined organ of the government, under the control of the Congress and the President, and not a self constituted group. Indeed, the duty of the militia was specifically to suppress the actions of such groups. And that is how it was used on several occasions. Today, the various Militia Acts provide the justification for the draft.

The idea that the militia was intended to participate in an insurrection against the Congress, when both are "regulated" by Congress, is silly. FWIW, the United States did not have a standing army, or navy for that matter. The Constitution still prohibits appropriating funds for the military for more than one year.

Now, for giggles, research George Washington's comments on the utility of the militia and why he favored a formal army. The problem was that people did not want to be in the militia, at least not when there was work to be done at home.

Look it up for yourself. Ref: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#page-header

The provisions for the militia, and the individual right to bare arms, was indeed focused just as much on defending against external threats to the country as it was on defending against internal tyrannical threats. In case you forgot, the country had just won a revolutionary war against such a tyrannical threat. It was a multi-pronged defense mechanism.

And in the original vision the founding fathers had, the states were intended to have some amount of leverage over the Federal government. That's why it is explicitly stated that any powers not specifically delegated to the Federal government are within the purview of the state. And that's why the 2nd Amendment was written in (and placed accordingly within the bill of rights). And that's why our government, even to this day, is considered a federalist system...meaning that the Federal government does not have supreme power over the states. The Federal government has certain powers, the rest are left to the states.


The word 'regulated' is given too much focus within certain interpretations. A "regulated militia" was made up of the average citizenry (every able-bodied male who had voting rights). The only "regulation" they had was that they show up for certain drills with their weapon. The militia was not a standing state army....it was the citizenry who responded to the needs of the state, and the federal government, when required. Their presence was also intended to dissuade ambitious politicians from usurping too much power. The writers of that amendment certainly did not mean for "regulated" to signify that everyone had to pass tests and background checks in order to possess a weapon and be a part of the militia; and I'm not passing judgement on such measures, I'm simply saying "regulated" wasn't included in the language for that specific reason.

The founding fathers, and the initial few presidents, were keenly aware of internal threats to democracy just as much as they were aware of external threats.

 

[DiploStrat]

Sigh. You are citing your interpretations, I am quoting the US Constitution. I would argue that certain of your assumptions are historically incorrect. Again, read the Constitution.

N.B. I am not arguing against carrying firearms when traveling, only about the idea that the Second Amendment was intended to promote insurrection.

 

[DieselRanger]

Sigh. You are citing your interpretations, I am quoting the US Constitution. I would argue that certain of your assumptions are historically incorrect. Again, read the Constitution.

N.B. I am not arguing against carrying firearms when traveling, only about the idea that the Second Amendment was intended to promote insurrection.

The point of the 2nd Amendment and the other clauses related to the separation of powers is to disperse power among the people from whom the government is formed and draws its legitimacy. Without the balance of power, in the case of the 2nd Amendment, specifically military power, the people have little protection against tyranny. The 2nd Amendment isn't meant to promote insurrection, it's meant to eliminate its need except in the most extreme circumstances, such as those the Founding Fathers had very recently lived through. Remove the 2nd Amendment, and there is little practical resistance to tyranny, creeping or otherwise. Those of all political persuasions should understand this and support it.

In other words, better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

As for self-defense in wilderness, as others have said, carry if you want to; if you don't, don't. I believe you don't particularly need to carry in most areas of the Lower 48, though recently it has become more dangerous in some areas - due to people, not animals. In areas where the total loss (risk management) of human-animal contact is higher, I'm prepared to carry a firearm of sufficient power to ensure I remain at the pinnacle of the food chain and go home to my family, and I'll accept the very minor discomfort of carrying a heavy revolver or brush gun as a cost of lowering the total loss.