The lawmakers made the Second Amendment intentionally ambiguous.

[Double Trouble]

I wonder why:


The lawmakers made the Second Amendment intentionally ambiguous. The term "well established militia" doesn't coincide with word "people."

The lawmakers treated the right to keep and bear arms as merely a means to an end. Not as an end for its own sake.

The lawmakers didn't even make self defense one of the objects of the Amendment.

I smell a Federalist Rat.

[Fang]

What's the source of that quote? It seems to even be a little unclear on the actual wording, which refers to "a well-regulated militia." The term "regulated" causes a great deal of confusion: The meaning in common usage at the time the Bill of Rights was penned, "ordered" or "made uniform" is less common today.

[Clinotus]

There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instill prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism.

Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS?

If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it.

[Double Trouble]

What's the source of that quote?
I am the source.


It seems to even be a little unclear on the actual wording, which refers to "a well-regulated militia." That it does. I was drunk when when I wrote "established" instead of "regulated." My bad.


The term "regulated" causes a great deal of confusion: The meaning in common usage at the time the Bill of Rights was penned, "ordered" or "made uniform" is less common today. How did you ascertain that to be the most common use of the word "regulate?"

[Double Trouble]

There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instill prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism.

Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS?

If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it.

That was the spin the Federalists put on the Constitution. But, their real object, according to the Anti Federalists, was to destroy the militia by neglecting to provide it arms.

[Clinotus]

That was the spin the Federalists put on the Constitution. But, their real object, according to the Anti Federalists, was to destroy the militia by neglecting to provide it arms.

My question then is if the Militias were, by the modern definition of the period, to be each able bodied man with a rifle to defend the homeland, why would the Federalists in turn attempt to disband the very element that give rise to the means of the revolution in the first place?

[Double Trouble]

...the Militias were...each able bodied man with a rifle to defend the homeland...
Words in a legal instrument, according to the rules of construction existent in 1789, were to be understood according to their usual and most known signification. In 1787, the usual signification of "militia" was "the standing force of a nation." (See the 1787 edition of A Dictionary of the English Language)

[Double Trouble]

...why would the Federalists in turn attempt to disband the very element that give rise to the means of the revolution in the first place?

Because they wanted the power of the sword vested in the U. S. Government, not the State Governments.

[Clinotus]

Words in a legal instrument, according to the rules of construction existent in 1789, were to be understood according to their usual and most known signification. In 1787, the usual signification of "militia" was "the standing force of a nation." (See the 1787 edition of A Dictionary of the English Language)

Several references abound in the text of the ‘Dictionary of the English Language’ which can in fact reflect on the usage of the word at the time. Words like Trainband (Trained Band), in which most refer, follows that the definition of the militia was a part of the community that was trained in martial exercise.

Definitions aside, it does not remove that lacking a standing army in the new nation or holding a standing army that the framers would not want portions of the Militia –armed citizens, to be at hand to defend the homeland.

The contention on the construction of the language removes the entirety of the actual debate that was being had at the time which was in regard to Standing Armies vs. Militias.

A militia would have and could only be well held by the people and for the people, in the effort to defeat or rally against any army, foreign or domestic, as at the time the militias were in fact the very avenue to the rise to power in the new government, which was not consumed with power in its seat but with the power of the populace to overthrow those who were in power.

So on the Federal Authority, let the nation then establish a large standing army that would be held in check by the armed citizens of state militias. It’s nothing more than a check for the balance of power.