‘Well Regulated’ Are Words In The Second Amendment



In the discussion of gun rights there are many references to the phrase “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Less quoted is the very first part of the Amendment authorizing a “well regulated Militia.” Even back when the only weapons that existed were single shot muskets, our Founding Fathers felt it necessary to add the words “well regulated.” They would never have dreamed that private citizens could eventually become better armed than our police forces. And since the Constitution is a living document and has been amended many times to reflect the changes in our culture, I think it is time to update our interpretation of this Amendment to reflect the current weapons technology and the increase in criminal and social violence.

In Alabama I grew up surrounded by gun owners and I support the Second Amendment. I know of no one who opposes the use of guns for hunting or personal protection. But I think that even the average gun owner realizes that assault weapons and high capacity magazines are not necessary for these activities. Weapons that can cause devastating damage to a group of people in a few short minutes are only appropriate for our soldiers.

If we asked the mother of the shooter at Sandy Hook if her right to have those kinds of weapons was worth the tragedy that resulted, I wonder what she would say. But, oh yeah, we can’t ask her because she was the first victim.

The leader of the NRA likes to blame violent movies/games as a cause for this frightening increase in U.S. gun deaths. And that is one issue to explore. However, all countries have those same influences, yet their gun deaths are a mere fraction of ours. Is it because Americans are more blood-thirsty or crazy than their citizens? Or could it possibly be because we have many more unregulated guns in our country? Couldn’t that even be considered as a factor?

Even a majority of NRA members recognize the need for improvements in background checks and recognize that a discussion of addressing ways to confront this problem is needed. Do not let a knee-jerk reaction to common sense gun safety regulations render us powerless to come to a solution.

Let’s return to the Constitution’s intent of being “well-regulated.”

Wendy Trainor


Ronald Hamric 4 years ago

Ms.Trainor, With all due respect, you might avail yourself of just what "well regulated" meant as regards a "militia" in those days. It had absolutely nothing to do with "written regulations" as you infer. A study of history is in order and an excellent place to start is with the Federalist Papers and the writings of those that drafted the Constitution. Within those writings, I believe you will find that your views are off the mark in their accuracy on the whole, and specifically in error regarding the "intent" of the 2nd Amendement.


ALLAN SIMS 4 years ago

This certainly proves the adage that "people hear want they want to hear, and disregard the rest". Liberals hear what they want to hear, and want to push it down everyone else's throat, with what, to them, appears irrefutable evidence. But, under examination is shown to be based on faulty assumptions.

This has been the liberal mindset for over one hundred years that has ruined our commerce clause, our 14th amendment, the 1st, 4th, 8th 9th and 10th amendments and now they want to trash the 2nd as well.

There is certainly more than one way to interpret the term “well regulated", and as Mr. Hamric points out, the historical content of the writings left us by those founders prove without a shadow of a doubt, the intent was for the average citizen to not only have personal access to a good rifle and pistols, but to be able, with his fellow neighbors to have access to cannon, and anything else favorable to a militia cause. For, to have a “well regulated” militia, you need men who can bring those weapons and their accouterments to the meeting place to form that “well regulated” militia.

I refer Ms. Trainor to the excellent blog defining this very subject, put forth by Mr. Tom Garrett located at http://www.paysonroundup.com/discussions/open/Im_istening/5231/ If, after having read that blog, she wishes further dialog, then by all means post here, or there, and let’s explore the liberal versus the conservative view on this most important subject.


ALLAN SIMS 4 years ago

I agree that liberals today are nothing like those of yesteryear. I knew a lot of those folks who wanted a good living and looked to ‘progressive liberalism’ aka “The New Deal” to provide it. To them that meant a good job, earning a good day’s pay, not stealing someone else’s money.

They were mistaken then as many are today. For the “New Deal” was the same tripe as what we have today. It got interrupted by WWII, or we’d have been the United Soviet Socialist States of America years ago. But, many more of today’s liberals are of a different bent, seen today. These ‘hyper liberals’ are aggressively pushing us towards a Communist/Nazi/Fascist form of government.

You use the term “facism” (meaning fascist) above. I don’t think you understand the term, but like most liberals tend to sling it over your heads like a weapon, as many used to use the N word, i.e. simply as a derogatory term.

Fascism is “an authoritarian system of government under absolute control of a single dictator, allowing no political opposition, forcibly suppressing dissent, and rigidly controlling most industrial and economic activities. Such regimes usually try to achieve popularity by a strongly nationalistic appeal, often mixed with racism.” (Source is from the online free dictionary at: http://freedictionary.org/?Query=fascism&button=Search)

As you can see, this is a close match to what your friend Hussein is attempting in Washington now. And, as far as elitism? Have you watched that fellow talk when he is condescending (As he usually is)? There are pictures all over the internet comparing his profile with that of Mussolini, the first of the big fascists.

Since you really don’t understand the term ‘fascism’ it makes what you stated above seem rather foolish, and that can be extrapolated across the rest of it.

So, let’s leave the bashing behind, and concentrate on the subject of the post, meaning the 2nd amendment and the concept of “well regulated” proving to the liberal mind that it can’t possibly apply to the individual.


Ronald Hamric 4 years ago

Mr. Jones, "Today's conservatives are idealogues who wish to use all means possible to inflict their OWN viewpoints and beliefs on ALL the citizenry. That isn't conservatism. That's borderline facism and the heighth of elitism!!" Might you permit me to take that from a viewpoint counter to yours, to wit "Today's progressive/socialists are idealogues who wish to use all means possible to inflict their OWN viewpoints and beliefs on ALL the citizenry. That isn't liberalism. That's borderline facism and the highth of elitism!!" And as examples of how I believe my statement trumps yours in it's legitimacy I offer the follwing "means".

Progressive/socialists have recently gone on record as supporting the abolition of the US Constitution, or at a minimum altering it so that it is more favorable to their ideological positions.

They have also "enlisted" what used to be the "Forth estate", an objective media, to spread lies and innuendo towards any person or group who is not of their progressive/socialistc pursuasion.

To advance their agenda, they have effectively taken over the public education system and the majority of this nation's institutes of higher learning, where they demonize America's history and those that created that history. Their decades long approach was rewarded with the election of 2008.

It is the progressive/socilaists that have attempted to "legislate opinions" through the passage of "Hate speech" laws. The only result they have effected so far, is to literally silence the voices of any different viewpoints via political correctness and character assassination. You transparently used that very approach in your response to Mr. Sims.

"America is great BECAUSE of our diversity. We're all descended from immigrants of one sort or another." It is great because all those diverse immigrants historically assimilated into the "American" culture. It is the progressive/socialists who are currently dividing this nation into racial, cultural, economic, and religious segments where their "Americanism" is secondary to all else.

If these concepts I've posted seem foreign to you, then it appears you have not read Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals". That is one of the "Bibles" of the Progressive/Socialsit movement and is being utilized this very day. Today's "Liberalism" equals progressive/socialism or what is more often referred to as the "Left".


Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.