It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A well regulated Militia

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 06:50 PM
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.

Help not bashing please. I a far right winger with kids in our horrible education system have started trying to teach history to them in the evening.(they have had 2, 1 hour classes on history to date) To me the second half is clear as day that i have a right to own a gun........

But, i am having trouble with 2 words in the first part. "Militia" I am not part of a militia. "Regulated" Are they stateing that the military has a right as do i. Seems to obvious to state.

A little confused and want to be able to share both sides of the opinion(not just mine) to a 10 year old.

Please keep conversations civil!

Thanks in advance for your opinions and help. I will contribute with my daughters questions after our conversations for those interested.

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 07:01 PM
The way I have always interpreted this is as follows:

When this was written our country was not as organized as it is today. In order for the people to not be attacked by "hostiles" i.e., Indians or invaded by others they had militias as opposed to an Army instillations (for lack of a better word) in every locality. Therefore, the people formed militias to protect themselves, hence everyone had the right to own a gun for self preservation and for the protection of their land.

I have never interpreted this as we the people need this right to protect ourselves from the government as I have heard argued, although in this day and age, who knows.

On a side note, I think what you are doing is great. My son was/is dyslexic and we had to reteach him a lot of his work due to only letting him be in special ed for reading and spelling and English. I used to break it down for him as well. Along the lines of, you were thrown out of your country, put on a ship, you get here and there is nothing. You build a house, grow and hunt your food then the people who threw you out come back and tell you that you now have to pay them taxes. What would you do? He claims he learned more from our night lessons than in school. Made me feel good.

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 07:02 PM
Trying to bump myself, but do want help from ATSers. i am not baiting but want opinions. Agree or disagree i would like to explain both views.

Not wanting an argument rather, listening.

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 07:06 PM
reply to post by seejanerun

Thanks for the reply!

I feel i lean towards your explanation but, then what is the second half stateing. To me it seems to contradict the first half.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

I feel as if i am being told 2 clearly different things.

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 07:10 PM
reply to post by anotherdad

Quite the contrary. Originally when the founding fathers formed our government, a citizen was specifically a white, male, adult, property owner. We've come a ways in the tolerance of others that were previously excluded and now a citizen is an adult.

When the term militia was used, the term was interchangeable with "able-bodied adult males." Today, that term would be more accurately "able-bodies adults."

"Well regulated" has nothing to do with what we today perceive as regulations. The term "well regulated" meant well-armed. Using the latest, most effective arms of the day. In fact our frontiersmen had rifles. The British military of the day didn't have rifles, they had muskets. Thus at many battles, our militia using their own Pennsylvania rifles were able to outshoot at distance the British Army.

So, every American able-bodied adult is technically the militia. This was considered a civil duty to be able to come to arms in defense of your country and bring your own weapons if possible.

Some who never read the Federalist Papers and writings of the day misunderstand the term militia, and the term well regulated, and try to apply these terms to our National Guard and Reserves.

No, No, NO. You are the militia. I'm the militia. Even the girlie-men though unaware, are the militia. Thus the right of the people (militia) to bear arms is reserved.

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 07:15 PM
One other thing. This claiming that the need to protect yourself from the government is not necessary is BS. When we declared independence, we were fighting against the government of the moment.

We didn't get our Constitution and Bill of Rights for several more years. These were the facts of the day - that we were fighting the existing government - when the Constitution was written. And when ratified by the States did this become our founding document.

So yes, this right is intended to enable the people to fight against their government if said government violates the original contract.

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 07:16 PM
reply to post by dooper

Hat's off sir.That is the best explaination of the meaning behind the second amendment I have read.

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 07:21 PM

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by anotherdad

Some who never read the Federalist Papers and writings of the day misunderstand the term militia, and the term well regulated, and try to apply these terms to our National Guard and Reserves.

Great point, that is exactly what i did and thought. Then i went to a dictionary from today and it made supported that thought.

Thank you for adding, i will print this and cover later.

Please check back tomorrow for hopefully deaper questions.

It is so hard to raise a child and teach them to think on there own when your the only one that teaches them and i know how i feel. aftre all ive never been wrong. To qoute myself "kiddo feel free to disagree with my opinions but follow my rules"

At 5:20 my time i can no longer spell. Sorry painful read, my bad.

[edit on 23-10-2008 by anotherdad]

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 07:24 PM
reply to post by anotherdad

The people were the militia hence they must have arms.. The Army wasn't developed enough to be everywhere. It was everyman or militia fend for yourselves, we will get there as fast as we can. Or at least that's always how I took it.

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 07:26 PM
reply to post by anotherdad

I'm very please to hear a father teaching his children not only about rights, but about responsibilities. Terminology of today is not always the identical terminology of then. One must go to other resources to understand not only the letter of the law, but the original intent.

Everything has a price. You can pay up front. You can pay as you go. Or you will pay in the end. But the price will be paid.

Good for you.

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 07:29 PM
Thanks all! I still dont feel that i understand "regulated" you answered militia to an extent that, that is what i felt it meant when i reed it and makes sense to me.

Can't say i feel the same on regulated.

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 07:30 PM
reply to post by dooper

Just doing my part, that I feel responsable to do.

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 07:37 PM
Printed and i'll get back tomorrow.

Also those who disagree please chime in. I want to share both sides and those who disagree i don't feel informed enough to present your side.

Again, not a debate just digging for opinions.

I promise dooper will be nice

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 09:35 PM
The Second Amendment 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.

The US Code defines militia as:

TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So any male 17 to 45 is part of the unorganized militia, and if we remove sex and age discrimination...

Every citizen able to carry a weapon, 17 years of age and older, is a part of the unorganized militia.

Be all this as it may, maintaining a militia is an EXAMPLE of why the right to bear arms is our right.

And the amendment points out that an armed (unorganized) militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Once infringement of any kind takes place, we can no longer secure a FREE state.

So I am worried about both parties - being as they clearly are the opposite sides of a two-headed counterfeit coin, being thrust into our collective hand by a puppet media, the purchase of which is only one thing: NWO.

Anyway... As a person most closely affiliated with the Libertarians, I am avidly pro-2nd.

I hope this cleared a bit up for you. [smile]

posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 10:53 PM
Very good, Ama. I don't know yet how to cut and paste yet.

There it is.

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 03:01 PM

still dont feel that i understand "regulated"

"Regulation," like many words, has multiple meanings. Historically, "regulated" referring to firearms basically means "in good working order."

From wikipaedia:

Quote from external source
Regulation is a term used for multi-barreled firearms that indicates how close to the same point of aim the barrels will shoot. Regulation is very important, because a poorly regulated gun may hit consistently with one barrel, but miss consistently with the other, making the gun nearly useless for anything requiring two shots

Specifically if a rifle is"well-regulated" that means that the barrel (or barrels) is properly aligned with the sight, so that where you think you're aiming is actually where the bullet will go.

Let me also suggest that "necessary to the security of a free state" means "is necessary to keep a state free." It's the *freedom* of the state that's being kept secure, not physical "security" within a free state.

Also note that they are making a point of saying "keep AND bear" arms. To "bear" means to "carry". This choice of phrasing specifically means that not only are they talking about the right to own weapons, but also to carry them around.

Combining all of this with the definition for "militia" provided by Amaterasu above, "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" basically means:

"Keeping lots of guns that are in good, working condition in the hands of the people is necessary to maintain the freedom of a state. Because of this, there shall be no interferance with the legal right of people to own and carry weapons."

[edit on 24-10-2008 by LordBucket]

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 03:34 PM
Thank you soooo much guys. My daughters questions on this i was able to answer thanks to your help. After we discussed i had her right down what she as an american felt this meant to her. Always funny to get in the mind of a 10 year old.

"To me this means that i am a free citizen and have the right to own something without it being taken away. It also means that i have the right to have a suitable weapon in my arms for the right situation."

I love the "in my arms"

Will discuss further with her. As we go through the bill of rights please continue to contribute. It sure helps.

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 03:41 PM
You'll note that our founding fathers didn't say "well regulated by Congress."

Well regulated can have several meanings and it becomes apparent that our founding fathers intended it to mean the the militia should have equipment, marksmanship, firearms, and individually determined training sufficient to serve as a check to any standing army.

Hamilton wrote, " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige a government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . " (Federalist # 29)

We find that an armed citizenry is not to threaten other citizens, but by and through an armed citizenry, they can help insure "domestic tranquility" and help provide "for the common defense."

Keeping and bearing arms was not just a right. It was an obligation, excluding only those who for legitimate religious reasons - forbidden.

posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 06:33 PM
A miltila is that you can bear arms,be with men that have abile body and fight for are rights to be free.

posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 07:14 PM
Whatever anyone wants to define a militia as it has absolutely nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The 2nd says because a militia is a necessary thing the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The right is in no way dependent on the definition of militias or the regulation thereof.

This is why that whole "we have a National Guard so we can ban guns" argument is bunk before it reaches ears.

I guess if we decide one day that a militia whatever it is is necessary or we decide that we no longer wish to live in a free state the 2nd's protection of our right to keep and bear arm would be void. But whatever any piece of paper says or doesnt say doesnt alter natural law and the born state of liberty.

top topics


log in