Among the signs carried by many of the half-educated demonstrators protesting the Bill of Rights in Washington, D.C. was one that read, “What part of ‘well regulated’ don’t you understand?” The reference is to the famous introductory phrase of the 2nd Amendment, which says, “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.” It is safe to say the protester waving the sign meant it as a rebuke to those who think the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to own firearms.
As a simple declarative sentence, despite the unnecessary use of commas typical of 18th-century writing, the amendment is perfectly clear to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of English. Yet in recent decades, it has become the source of lies, distortion, and obfuscation by assorted opponents of the Bill of Rights who claim that only members of a militia may own guns. They include federal judges, left-wing activists, the politicians they support, and assorted anti-gun nuts in academia and news organizations. They pay homage to Michael Bloomberg and his Billionaires’ Crusade to Disarm the Peons by smearing the National Rifle Association’s 5 million members as a bunch of murderers and congressional puppet masters and spread demonstrable nonsense about the Bill of Rights.
Most of them, unlike the mawkish teens pumping their fists like Weathermen at a Viet Cong rally, are real grown-ups in coats and ties, many with law degrees and lots of official-sounding titles that make them seem like authoritative folks who really know what they’re talking about. But they don’t.
ht/ lawyer
What part of “Being necessary for the security of a free state” do you idiot lefties not understand? Show us the part where they mention hunting and recreation anywhere in it.
It’s confounding to all rational people that no amount of facts, statistics or logic will sway the other side when they are dug in to a position.
It’s the case here and in most other disagreements with the left, they will not budge from their position and they’ll apply any means to achieve success.
It comes down to a numbers game and holding on means steadily keeping up the pressure as they do.
This can’t end peacefully. A line that can’t be crossed.
And, of course, we have to remember that it only allowed ownership of single shot muzzle loaded muskets.
“This can’t end peacefully” I’m beginning to hope it can’t.
A militia was generally composed of hard working people like farmers and common citizens etc. who were exercising their God given right to oppose the might of the government against the will of the people. What’s wrong with that? It’s still, We the people and not We the government.
“Well-regulated Militia” doesn’t mean what everyone seems to think it means, i.e. well-controlled. To know what it means, you need an understanding of military terminology.
At the time the Constitution was drafted, what were the army’s foot soldiers commonly called?
That’s right — “regulars”.
A “well-regulated Militia” is a militia with enough foot soldiers to defend the country well.
The use of commas in 18th century writing is akin to using ALL CAPS these days.
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.
Each sentence is as important as the others and the last sentence applies to all the ones before it.
In 1789, the people had the right to ownership of the exact same firearms hardware as was used by the military.
Moreover, I think it’s obvious via 2A that the people have the right to form their own militia.
We can never institute a socialist Utopia in the United States, similar to that of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez, the Castro Bros., the Ortega Bros., Mussolini, Mugabe, Ceausescu, Tito, Kim, Antonescu, and Ho, until we have confiscated all weaponry from the degenerate, reactionary Americans.
izlamo delenda est …
This:
https://tmd.texas.gov/state-guard
But, as far as the right to keep and bear arms being dependent on being in a miiitia, that’s as ridiculous as stating the first amendment only protects free religious speech as both are mentioned.
I read a language historian (yes, a pseudo-intellectual degree that prepares you for a career at Starbucks) explain that “well regulated” in the time it was written had the meaning of well equipped and well trained. Also, a Militia was a fighting force formed of citizens in lieu of a professional army.
@Cynic – the meaning of ‘regulated’ in that time period was “functioning correctly”, similar to “a well-oiled machine”.
A properly-working militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
We are all the militia, are we not?
I appreciate their arrogant self righteous public display of their ignorance. It’s a public service revealing they are fools. If you’re an ignorant fool – wear it proudly!!
[ another hilarious one is when they claim the signers of the US Constitution thought of slaves as only 3/5 human. Instead of being smart enough to know the three-fifths clause was a means to reduce by 40% the number of congressmen from slave states, thereby limiting their power]
The framers of the US Constitution were true Renaissance Men with an excellent command of language, better educated I suspect, than most of today’s educators and commentators. The document they produced is quite remarkable and has proven very robust.
The meaning of the second Amendment is quite clear.
Attempts to weaken it by disputing the meaning of the terms “militia”, “arms”, “well-regulated” and “the people” are fallacious.
The hook in the second amendment resides in the final clause:
“…right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
I notice that revisionists avoid discussion of that clause, particularly the term “infringed.”
The definition of militia is implicit in the text of the Amendment.
Militia = People
Not the Army, not the National Guard, not the police. (They already have Arms.)
The People.
You and me.
The same people protected under the other Amendments.
As you ponder that distinction, reflect for a moment on the difference between a citizen and a subject.
I am a militia. Seems easy to understand.