|
|
|
The term "Well regulated" was in common use at the time of the framing of the constitution, and generally referred to the property of something being in working order, calibrated correctly, or functioning as expected- a famous example being "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." In this example, one's appetites and worthy inclinations are not subject to rule of law or civil authority, they are rather governed by the sensibility instilled in us by said education.
This is a very different meaning than what we think of today- to the modern reader, "well-regulated" means that government has significant oversight and regulatory authority over that which is well-regulated. So which did the framers mean? Did they mean the militia ought to be predictable and regular, subject to civil authority, or both? If the intended meaning is that 'well-regulated' means they should be subjected to civil authority, which civil authorities does that mean? What impact should this have on defining the scope and nature of the rights defined by the 2nd Amendment?
It really is not clear. The second definition of "well-regulated" is a much more modern usage, but would not have been linguistically incorrect. There's a lot of contemporary discussion by framers to suggest that the purpose was to empower individuals to defend themselves individually as well as collectively. There's even a reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that suggests that in order to have a well-regulated militia, the people ought to be armed- that is, an armed citizenry would serve to govern or "regulate" the militia's urges to do the sort of things that packs of armed guys may be wont to do.
The term "militia" is also much-contested, and swings in part on how its modifier, "Well-Regulated", is construed. If it simply means everybody is armed, competent, and able to work together, that's quite different from requiring sworn, professional standing fighters or even today's version of the national guard.
Given the framers' mistrust of standing armies (having been occupied by one) the term 'militia' included pretty much all men, excluding those whose moral or religious convictions proscribed taking up arms (i.e., Quakers and the like).
...so the phrase "well-regulated militia" is easy to argue over, but just how is it relevant to my right to defend myself in my home? Since in some theory, my right to own guns with which to defend myself and my family derives from this definition, it's a big deal, and there should also be some consideration given to the utility provided by same. Legal gun ownership cannot be proven to cause increased gun crime, so why go after legal gun owners? Famously, the town of Kennesaw, GA, in response to Morton Grove, IL's gun ban for anybody but police, mandated that each household own and maintain a gun. The results: crime went down and population went up in Kennesaw, crime went up and population dropped in Morton Grove. Sure, it's anecdotal, but it supports the argument that gun control does not lead to or equal crime control.
...and the truth is, it can't. You can't prevent gun crime by taking guns out of the hands of the people who will comply with such an order. That's the conundrum: if you disarm the folks who would comply with a gun ban, you more or less empower the folks willing to disregard that law, and significantly compromise the regular guy's ability to defend himself (especially if you count the possibility of you being armed as a part of your defense- a deterrent for someone considering entering your home, for example). This is a significant consideration and I hope that however the constitutional question (whether gun ownership is a guaranteed individual, or state's right) is decided, that individual legal access to firearms is preserved. |
|
|
That's an interesting question. New 
BoaterTalk 
