Quote of the Day

This one is from The Federalist Papers #29

THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy...Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

DO you still want to argue that well-regulated does not mean under strict control by laws?

This is yet another aspect where facts and history are against you if you want to try and argue that it means "well-trained".

No, "well-regulated" does not mean "well-trained"--it means that the organisation is firmly under control

The usual pro-gun argument about the term "well-regulated" in the Second Amendment is that it has something to do with the militia being well-trained, but like most of the mythology surrounding the Second Amendment this takes that passage out of historical and political context.

I like to cite to Adam Smith's comment in wealth of nations that:

This distinction being well understood, the history of all ages, it will be found, bears testimony to the irresistible superiority which a well-regulated standing army has over a militia.[1]

This could would be scary if the meaning were "well-trained" rather than a standing army firmly under civilian control since the fear was that a well-trained, well-armed, professional military could indeed overrun a poorly trained civilian force.


Additionally, the Constitution was partially a response to Shays Rebellion, which was an out of control mob: not a militia.  Shays Rebellion was firmly in the minds of the people who were debating the Constitution and its ratification.  They would not have wanted a militia which was not firmly under control.

As I have said before, the issue isn't personal arms in the Constitutional debates as much as it is the nature of the defence establishment and civilian control over the military.  To say that the term "well-regulated" does not refer to making sure that the militia is firmly under civilian control is to show a degree of historical ignorance which is staggering

Where this falls into the topic of a militarised police force isn't so much that a police force is like Scotland Yard or the French Gendarmerie Nationale as much as that it is firmly under civilian control and well-regulated by rules and procedures which protect the people.

A strong, independent judiciary is a necessary institution in such a society to make sure that the military/police are kept under control.  That was why the Constitution specifically sets limits for the Judiciary and guarantees protections in the legal process, both civil and criminal.

As another commenter said, "well-regulated means exactly that", whether one is talking about militias or professional military. 

[1] Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter I-Of the Expences of the Sovereign or CommonwealthPART I Of the Expence of Defence V.1.27

Quote of the Day

"A nation under a well regulated government, should permit none to remain uninstructed. It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support."Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1792

You still saying that "well regulated" means "well-trained"?  How can a government be "well-trained"?