If automotive engineers could develop an otherwise-functional car that was incapable of killing anyone then they would be celebrated as heroes and geniuses. Their innovations would change the entire industry and their design innovations would soon become mandatory for all new vehicles.
That’s one of the key differences between cars and guns. With cars the lethality is a tragic side effect that the automotive industry is constantly working to mitigate. With guns the lethality is the whole point.
You’ll never hear a story like “i was using my gun when it accidentally dropped my kid off safely at school”
Need proof? Just look to the apprehended tough-guy gunsmokers who stormed the Capitol in January, but now in April, are whining like little babies.
A lot of people tend to use them as security blankets, tho.
The Beatles suggested Mother Superior had a thing for them.
But… how do you even have a “well regulated militia” if you don’t even let states… regulate… the militia? I guess it’s not so “necessary to the security of a free state,” after all?
Make Reading Comprehension Important Again.
Not to be a pedant, but at that time, the word “regulated” meant something more like “disciplined,” rather than the more modern meaning of “rules and norms set forth by a government,” which did not come along until the middle of the 19th century at the earliest.
Edit to Update: Welp, it looks like I got roped in by NRA propaganda without even realizing it. As @DukeTrout kindly pointed out below, the modern meaning of “regulate” does indeed appear throughout the Constitution. I stand corrected.
Not really mutually exclusive, though. If the constitution predicates the need for arms on disciplined militias then it’s also reasonable for government to require such, aka “regulate” them. So the term “well regulated” still works in both senses.
Big nope, there. Read the Constitution. Regulate/regulation/regulating appears 12 times. The eleven times other than the 2A very much refer to the enforcement and interpretation of laws, a.k.a. The modern meaning of “regulation.”. Don’t get programmed by the NRA brainwashing, friend.
Wow, I didn’t even realize that I was looking at NRA propaganda there. They’ve even infiltrated Wikipedia. Thanks for the heads-up.
How does regulated=disciplined help the NRA? It implies that only miltia members who have had military training (which is more than knowing how to use a gun) should carry arms.
The propaganda interpretations that I was looking at go on to helpfully explain that the “idea was that the militias would train and discipline their own members.” It muddies the waters about who is doing the disciplining.
Right, so instead of each state having a single official militia (as when the Constitution was drafted) anyone can get together with their buddies and decide that they are a militia. What could possibly go wrong?
Yeah, come to think of it, the way it’s worded could just as easily be interpreted as meaning that the federal government cannot impose laws that restrict the right of the states to maintain armed militias. It’s amazing how stretched the interpretations have become, especially by so-called “originalists.”
Edit to Update: Holy crap. It did mean that.
"In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, “a standing army … would be opposed [by] a militia.” He argued that state militias “would be able to repel the danger” of a federal army, “It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.”
The Founders believed that standing armies led inevitably to tyranny, but if the United States had no army it/they would be helpless against invasion from abroad. Militias would provide a body of armed and trained men who could be called up if needed, without the perceived risks of maintaining a permanent army.
There really isn’t much evidence to suggest that this is true, though. In fact, every bit of evidence suggests that by not participating in a solution, they’re getting what they want–expanded gun “access.”
That bit is definitely BS. Many of the framers had just a few years earlier been active combattants and officers in a war against one of the most highly disciplined military forces on the planet and understood the value of formal regulation (in the archaic sense) when it came to firearms.
Despite romanticised portrayals, the critical confrontations their forces engaged in against the British were not guerilla actions (e.g. lone farmers taking potshots against enemy columns) but standard 18th-century line battles that required serious training. Local state militias were a critical supplement (and, from an ideological POV, a state-level counterbalance) to the Continental Army (later the smaller standing federal army), but in both cases the effective soldier was expected to be trained not by his fellow troops but by a cadre of professional soldiers.
This scene from “Glory”, in which Civil War troops are being trained to fight in battles using tactics and weapons technology still not far removed from those of the late 18th century, is a good illustration of how important real drilling and training is (and was for the framers).
I’m too busy to get involved in this one today, Mister. But I’m with you.
Yes, regulated in this context means a well equipped and drilled militia. That is why there is the adverb “well” before it. Well means in a thorough manner, or good or satisfactory way. “Well regulated” = “thoroughly drilled and equipped”. Where else has there been an instance of something “regulated” or given the power to ‘regulate’ also has the adverb “well” attached to it? It isn’t, because it wouldn’t make sense in that context.
The original model for the army and national defense was small local militias that could be called up in times of war. This was put to the test in the war of 1812. Of course this model has largely been abandoned, with a huge standing army now. Though the National Guard system is what the state militias evolved into.
Militias are “regulated” in the other sense as well. A 1780s militia law stated who qualified to join, and what arms and gear they had to provide. X amount of powder, y amount of ammo, good boots, bed roll, etc. And also how often they should meet to drill.
But I will keep repeating this - because it is true - the militia part shows one of the reasons behind the right - it is not a REQUIREMENT of the right. Other wise it would be the right of the people to form a militia, or the right of the militia to bear arms. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms. You can’t form a militia if you don’t have a pool of armed populace to make one. So arguing what “regulated” means doesn’t change that.
Though I will also say this doesn’t preclude the government from being able to regulate firearms. There are hundreds of laws and a whole government entity set up to regulate them. Regulation/laws doesn’t necessarily mean infringement. So, again, not seeing the point of focusing on the word “regulate” like that is some ace in the whole for this whole 2nd Amendment debate.
