Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Elixir]

Reports are that the shooter was a white male with long black hair. Lunatic? Incel? Boogaloo boy?

Been reading that he’s Magat, been at Trump rallies, raised by Trumpsucking 2A zealots … not that it has anything to do with being a mass murderer killing random people in a democratic area…
Prob’ly just another innocent white victim of mental illness caused by the existence of black people or Hillary.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Reports are that the shooter was a white male with long black hair. Lunatic? Incel? Boogaloo boy?

Been reading that he’s Magat, been at Trump rallies, raised by Trumpsucking 2A zealots … not that it has anything to do with being a mass murderer killing random people in a democratic area…
Prob’ly just another innocent white victim of mental illness caused by the existence of black people or Hillary.

Are you still talking about this? It was time to move on once the bodies got cold. FREEDOM!!!!

 

[Copernicus]

Bottom line, the new government saw it as in its interest to have a heavily armed population, without whose contributions it might have fallen to a federal military or foreign mercenaries to keep the peace, a task that would have been both impossible to accomplish and extremely unpopular with the citizens. Forced disarmaments of Tory families were also a major source of criticism of the Revolutionary government during the war; this amendment could be seen as kind of a peace token in that regard.

I wouldn't say that the goal was a heavily armed population. It had more to do with gun technology at the time. Militias depended on muzzle-loading weapons, which meant that it took time to reload them. For a military force to be effective with muzzle loaders, it needed to keep up a constant barrage of musket balls. Typically, units formed three rows of shooters. That allowed sufficient time for reloading to take place while one line was always stepping forward and firing. Hence, the need for a well-regulated militia. Coordinated firing was essential.

The two major threats at the state level were slave revolts and attacks from Indians, but militias were also depended upon to stop other rebellions by citizens opposed to, say, taxes on whiskey. The problem with a federal army wasn't just disarmament, but a state becoming too reliant on a federal standing army to protect them from perceived local threats. If abolitionists controlled the federal government, they might not allow federal troops to be used to put down slave rebellions. States needed their own armies to guarantee their security.

 

[Politesse]

Bottom line, the new government saw it as in its interest to have a heavily armed population, without whose contributions it might have fallen to a federal military or foreign mercenaries to keep the peace, a task that would have been both impossible to accomplish and extremely unpopular with the citizens. Forced disarmaments of Tory families were also a major source of criticism of the Revolutionary government during the war; this amendment could be seen as kind of a peace token in that regard.

I wouldn't say that the goal was a heavily armed population. It had more to do with gun technology at the time. Militias depended on muzzle-loading weapons, which meant that it took time to reload them. For a military force to be effective with muzzle loaders, it needed to keep up a constant barrage of musket balls. Typically, units formed three rows of shooters. That allowed sufficient time for reloading to take place while one line was always stepping forward and firing. Hence, the need for a well-regulated militia. Coordinated firing was essential.

You honestly believe that the reason for that admonition in the Constitution was to provide formation advice? Why would that be a legal question?

 

[Copernicus]

Bottom line, the new government saw it as in its interest to have a heavily armed population, without whose contributions it might have fallen to a federal military or foreign mercenaries to keep the peace, a task that would have been both impossible to accomplish and extremely unpopular with the citizens. Forced disarmaments of Tory families were also a major source of criticism of the Revolutionary government during the war; this amendment could be seen as kind of a peace token in that regard.

I wouldn't say that the goal was a heavily armed population. It had more to do with gun technology at the time. Militias depended on muzzle-loading weapons, which meant that it took time to reload them. For a military force to be effective with muzzle loaders, it needed to keep up a constant barrage of musket balls. Typically, units formed three rows of shooters. That allowed sufficient time for reloading to take place while one line was always stepping forward and firing. Hence, the need for a well-regulated militia. Coordinated firing was essential.

You honestly believe that the reason for that admonition in the Constitution was to provide formation advice? Why would that be a legal question?

That isn't what I said. The expression "well-regulated" was likely a reference to the type of training needed to make a group of soldiers with muzzle loaders an effective fighting force. Without that training, they would not be as effective. It's not about a specific formation but about training. That would be a legal question, because originalists are supposed to base their understanding of the text in its historical context. There are other words to support this interpretation. If it had been intended as a right to keep and bear arms for personal self defense, there would have been no need for the reference to a militia. This was about keeping and bearing arms in the context of a militia. The plain language is pretty obvious. Breach-loading weapons may have existed at the time, but they weren't standard equipment for militias. Modern guns are all breach-loading and don't require the shooter to take the time to load ammunition down the muzzle. That's an important fact to take into account when interpreting the meaning of that particular amendment, because legislative language does not normally embellish the wording with details irrelevant to the intent of the regulation or law. IOW, it tends to be parsimonious, since a group of framers negotiate the wording. It was about a perceived need of militia trainees in that particular era. There is nothing in the amendment about personal use, although the Heller decision extended the meaning to cover that implied interpretation. Weapons could be "kept", but not necessarily at home. That is what armories were used for. Nothing in there about restrictions or lack thereof on private ownership. State governments could have imposed standards on the type of guns to be used by the militia.

 

[Jarhyn]

Bottom line, the new government saw it as in its interest to have a heavily armed population, without whose contributions it might have fallen to a federal military or foreign mercenaries to keep the peace, a task that would have been both impossible to accomplish and extremely unpopular with the citizens. Forced disarmaments of Tory families were also a major source of criticism of the Revolutionary government during the war; this amendment could be seen as kind of a peace token in that regard.

I wouldn't say that the goal was a heavily armed population. It had more to do with gun technology at the time. Militias depended on muzzle-loading weapons, which meant that it took time to reload them. For a military force to be effective with muzzle loaders, it needed to keep up a constant barrage of musket balls. Typically, units formed three rows of shooters. That allowed sufficient time for reloading to take place while one line was always stepping forward and firing. Hence, the need for a well-regulated militia. Coordinated firing was essential.

You honestly believe that the reason for that admonition in the Constitution was to provide formation advice? Why would that be a legal question?

That isn't what I said. The expression "well-regulated" was likely a reference to the type of training needed to make a group of soldiers with muzzle loaders an effective fighting force. Without that training, they would not be as effective. It's not about a specific formation but about training. That would be a legal question, because originalists are supposed to base their understanding of the text in its historical context. There are other words to support this interpretation. If it had been intended as a right to keep and bear arms for personal self defense, there would have been no need for the reference to a militia. This was about keeping and bearing arms in the context of a militia. The plain language is pretty obvious. Breach-loading weapons may have existed at the time, but they weren't standard equipment for militias. Modern guns are all breach-loading and don't require the shooter to take the time to load ammunition down the muzzle. That's an important fact to take into account when interpreting the meaning of that particular amendment, because legislative language does not normally embellish the wording with details irrelevant to the intent of the regulation or law. IOW, it tends to be parsimonious, since a group of framers negotiate the wording. It was about a perceived need of militia trainees in that particular era. There is nothing in the amendment about personal use, although the Heller decision extended the meaning to cover that implied interpretation. Weapons could be "kept", but not necessarily at home. That is what armories were used for. Nothing in there about restrictions or lack thereof on private ownership. State governments could have imposed standards on the type of guns to be used by the militia.

So, the issue here is that the federal government gave a right to the states that the states abused.

The abusive states just declared the whole state a militia and minimized requirements.

Sounds like the federal government must define "militia" legally, and crack down on illegal militias.

 

[Copernicus]

So, the issue here is that the federal government gave a right to the states that the states abused.

The abusive states just declared the whole state a militia and minimized requirements.

Sounds like the federal government must define "militia" legally, and crack down on illegal militias.

There is a whole mythology surrounding the interpretation of "militia" wrt the 2nd amendment. The NRA would have us believe that all military-aged citizens belong to it. Strictly speaking, our modern National Guard is a creation of the early 20th century. Before that, National Guard units and Militia units had been treated separately by state governments. Nowadays, a few states still maintain militias separate from their National Guard units, but they don't play much of a role. The modern National Guard has superseded them and is thoroughly under federal control.

My point is that weapons technology had a lot to do with what "well-regulated" actually meant in the 18th century. Breach-loading weapons weren't even invented until the early half of the 19th century, so reloading rifles was a big deal. Jacketed bullets and semiautomatic weapons came much later. Even in the Civil War, soldiers were still mostly using muzzle loaders. A few had breach-loading rifles, which could be reloaded much more quickly. So it was really necessary for people to practice using the weapon a lot and to learn how to use it in coordination with others. Nowadays, the term "well-regulated" tends to have the sense "well-organized" rather than "well-trained".

But what does a gun have to do with being well-organized? Any angry teenager can learn to use a modern military-style assault weapon and reload it quickly with high capacity magazines. Not a lot of training is necessary, just Youtube videos, web sites, and chat rooms to show them the basics. It wouldn't be that simple, if they needed to load powder, wadding, and ball down the barrel every time they had to fire the weapon.

 

[Politesse]

That isn't what I said. The expression "well-regulated" was likely a reference to the type of training needed to make a group of soldiers with muzzle loaders an effective fighting force. Without that training, they would not be as effective. It's not about a specific formation but about training.

If that was the intent, it was never followed; the states never maintained permanent militias with ongoing training regimes, to my knowledge. Actually, the nation struggled to fund even the temporary associations they tried to levy, in the early years. They owed huge debts to their existing veterans, and raising militias to combat enemies internal or external proved a massive and persistent problem until the Civil War era.

There is nothing in the amendment about personal use, although the Heller decision extended the meaning to cover that implied interpretation. Weapons could be "kept", but not necessarily at home. That is what armories were used for. Nothing in there about restrictions or lack thereof on private ownership. State governments could have imposed standards on the type of guns to be used by the militia.

It's clear enough that military, not personal recreational use, is the intended focus of this Amendment; I think we agree on that much. I do think most communities assumed a store of weapons at home, though. This is implied by the documents I've read from the time, which due to my genealogy addiction, is more than a few. I think most frontier households had arms in the home and used them regularly (though more for animal defense than human). Perhaps less true of urban populations. But even the cities weren't really organized the same way they are now, especially not where coercive force was concerned. Most communities had no formal police or military structure beyond local voluntary organizations that functioned more like clubs than armies. If an actual war started, the state or nation paid you on a defined contract and assumed the cost of training alongside the year-and-day of your service. You could be conscripted without your consent, but not for longer than your term of service, and only in an emergency situation.

I also don't think the organization of the militia is as such the purpose of the Second, since that would be superfluous; the main document already establishes the right of the Congress to oversee the creation and regulation of the militias. The Bill of Rights is about personal, not institutional rights. I do not think it is credible therefore to assert that this Amendment was only meant to apply to collective armories; personal gun ownership has to have been its intended target. But I do agree that the use of arms they were thinking about was participation in the militias, not hanging out at the shooting range with the boys, shooting primary schoolers for the lulz, or collecting guns for their own sake.

Honestly, I think the entire country would be better off following the model of some of European nations in which all adult citizens have mandatory firearm training and perhaps the responsibility to maintain a government-provided rifle, but otherwise have fairly limited and clearly regulated gun rights beyond what is necesary to maintain the citizen militia / conscription readiness. But the immovable our citizens are already heavily armed, and public opinion is not in favor of such a system.

EDIT TO CLARIFY: I'm not in favor the so-called Originalist approach to interpreting the Constitution in the first place. It sets up a self-contradictory situation in which the document itself clearly attempts to describe a democracy, but is interpreted in such a way as to over-ride democratic opinion in favor of oligarchic rule by a nine person Court and their self-interested "interpretation" of the whims of ghosts. The law should reflect the desires and understanding of the people who are currently living and can express their own opinions, not the desires of deceased men whose hypothetical opinion on present situations can only be guessed at. The Founders were not unanimous in their opinions nor inflexible in changing them; using their sepulchres the foundation of law is inherently doomed to inconsistency.

 

[Copernicus]

That isn't what I said. The expression "well-regulated" was likely a reference to the type of training needed to make a group of soldiers with muzzle loaders an effective fighting force. Without that training, they would not be as effective. It's not about a specific formation but about training.

If that was the intent, it was never followed; the states never maintained permanent militias with ongoing training regimes, to my knowledge. Actually, the nation struggled to fund even the temporary associations they tried to levy, in the early years. They owed huge debts to their existing veterans, and raising militias to combat enemies internal or external proved a massive and persistent problem until the Civil War era.

There is nothing in the amendment about personal use, although the Heller decision extended the meaning to cover that implied interpretation. Weapons could be "kept", but not necessarily at home. That is what armories were used for. Nothing in there about restrictions or lack thereof on private ownership. State governments could have imposed standards on the type of guns to be used by the militia.

It's clear enough that military, not personal recreational use, is the intended focus of this Amendment; I think we agree on that much. I do think most communities assumed a store of weapons at home, though. This is implied by the documents I've read from the time, which due to my genealogy addiction, is more than a few. I think most frontier households had arms in the home and used them regularly (though more for animal defense than human). Perhaps less true of urban populations. But even the cities weren't really organized the same way they are now, especially not where coercive force was concerned. Most communities had no formal police or military structure beyond local voluntary organizations that functioned more like clubs than armies. If an actual war started, the state or nation paid you on a defined contract and assumed the cost of training alongside the year-and-day of your service. You could be conscripted without your consent, but not for longer than your term of service, and only in an emergency situation.

I also don't think the organization of the militia is as such the purpose of the Second, since that would be superfluous; the main document already establishes the right of the Congress to oversee the creation and regulation of the militias. The Bill of Rights is about personal, not institutional rights. I do not think it is credible therefore to assert that this Amendment was only meant to apply to collective armories; personal gun ownership has to have been its intended target. But I do agree that the use of arms they were thinking about was participation in the militias, not hanging out at the shooting range with the boys or collecting guns for their own sake.

Honestly, I think the entire country would be better off following the model of some of European nations in which all adult citizens have mandatory firearm training and perhaps the responsibility to maintain a government-provided rifle, but otherwise have fairly limited and clearly regulated gun rights beyond what is necesary to maintain the citizen militia / conscription readiness. But our citizens are already heavily armed, and public opinion is not in favor of such a system.

All very well, but not much of what you said had anything to do with the Second Amendment. It is often called the most poorly worded language in the Constitution, but I don't believe that. It was very carefully worded--succinct and to the point. Given how weapons were understood at the time, reloading them was a major aspect of using them effectively. The Militia Act of 1792 was informed by that understanding of the Second Amendment. Technology quickly rendered the original sense of a "well-regulated militia" obsolete. After the Civil War, breach-loading weapons could be reloaded quickly and easily. Before that, not so much. More experience and training was needed to operate them effectively. All kinds of bad things could happen if soldiers didn't reload properly. Some soldiers even reloaded twice, forgetting that they had already stuffed powder, wadding, and ball down the barrel. It was only in the Civil War that bayonets began to be used offensively in warfare. Before that, they were largely defensive weapons. Why? Slow muzzle-loading weapons couldn't always be reloaded in time.

 

[Jarhyn]

That isn't what I said. The expression "well-regulated" was likely a reference to the type of training needed to make a group of soldiers with muzzle loaders an effective fighting force. Without that training, they would not be as effective. It's not about a specific formation but about training.

If that was the intent, it was never followed; the states never maintained permanent militias with ongoing training regimes, to my knowledge. Actually, the nation struggled to fund even the temporary associations they tried to levy, in the early years. They owed huge debts to their existing veterans, and raising militias to combat enemies internal or external proved a massive and persistent problem until the Civil War era.

There is nothing in the amendment about personal use, although the Heller decision extended the meaning to cover that implied interpretation. Weapons could be "kept", but not necessarily at home. That is what armories were used for. Nothing in there about restrictions or lack thereof on private ownership. State governments could have imposed standards on the type of guns to be used by the militia.

It's clear enough that military, not personal recreational use, is the intended focus of this Amendment; I think we agree on that much. I do think most communities assumed a store of weapons at home, though. This is implied by the documents I've read from the time, which due to my genealogy addiction, is more than a few. I think most frontier households had arms in the home and used them regularly (though more for animal defense than human). Perhaps less true of urban populations. But even the cities weren't really organized the same way they are now, especially not where coercive force was concerned. Most communities had no formal police or military structure beyond local voluntary organizations that functioned more like clubs than armies. If an actual war started, the state or nation paid you on a defined contract and assumed the cost of training alongside the year-and-day of your service. You could be conscripted without your consent, but not for longer than your term of service, and only in an emergency situation.

I also don't think the organization of the militia is as such the purpose of the Second, since that would be superfluous; the main document already establishes the right of the Congress to oversee the creation and regulation of the militias. The Bill of Rights is about personal, not institutional rights. I do not think it is credible therefore to assert that this Amendment was only meant to apply to collective armories; personal gun ownership has to have been its intended target. But I do agree that the use of arms they were thinking about was participation in the militias, not hanging out at the shooting range with the boys, shooting primary schoolers for the lulz, or collecting guns for their own sake.

Honestly, I think the entire country would be better off following the model of some of European nations in which all adult citizens have mandatory firearm training and perhaps the responsibility to maintain a government-provided rifle, but otherwise have fairly limited and clearly regulated gun rights beyond what is necesary to maintain the citizen militia / conscription readiness. But the immovable our citizens are already heavily armed, and public opinion is not in favor of such a system.

I'm not in favor the so-called Originalist approach to interpreting the Constitution. It sets up a self-contradictory situation in which the document itself clearly attempts to describe a democracy, but is interpreted in such a way as to over-ride democratic opinion in favor of oligarchic rule by a nine person Court and their self-interested "interpretation" of the whims of ghosts. The law should reflect the desires and understanding of the people who are currently living and can express their own opinions, not the desires of deceased men whose hypothetical opinion on present situations can only be guessed at. The Founders were not unanimous in their opinions nor inflexible in changing them; using fanciful portrayals of what their sepulchres demand as the foundation of law is inherently doomed to inconsistency.

And my point is, it seemed that the 2nd was aimed at keeping the federal government from controlling the arming policies of the states so as to prevent federal control of munitions.

It's a right specifically granted to the states which they then abused by not actually regulating "the militia" at all.

And now we have a bunch of militias, really more terrorist cells, which are unregulated and running amok.

 

[Copernicus]

And my point is, it seemed that the 2nd was aimed at keeping the federal government from controlling the arming policies of the states so as to prevent federal control of munitions.

It's a right specifically granted to the states which they then abused by not actually regulating "the militia" at all.

And now we have a bunch of militias, really more terrorist cells, which are unregulated and running amok.

Again, I think that you make the mistake of thinking that "well-regulated" meant "well-governed" or "well-controlled". But why would personal ownership of a weapon be relevant to that sense of the expression? It made more sense if the authors were thinking of soldiers that could reload quickly and fire in a coordinated pattern. That is, the sense of "well-regulated" they intended was more probably "well-trained" in using single-shot muskets that took time to reload.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And my point is, it seemed that the 2nd was aimed at keeping the federal government from controlling the arming policies of the states so as to prevent federal control of munitions.

It's a right specifically granted to the states which they then abused by not actually regulating "the militia" at all.

And now we have a bunch of militias, really more terrorist cells, which are unregulated and running amok.

Again, I think that you make the mistake of thinking that "well-regulated" meant "well-governed" or "well-controlled". But why would personal ownership of a weapon be relevant to that sense of the expression? It made more sense if the authors were thinking of soldiers that could reload quickly and fire in a coordinated pattern. That is, the sense of "well-regulated" they intended was more probably "well-trained" in using single-shot muskets that took time to reload.

I thought Jarhyn made a good point, but when you look at the text, it is explicitly talking to individual rights. The Bill of Rights was originally meant to protect the States and People from the Federal Government. But if the 2nd Amendment was enumerating the responsibility of gun ownership to the states, it is oddly worded. Additionally, gun ownership wasn't all too controversial in a country with a frontier and very rural.

 

[Jarhyn]

And my point is, it seemed that the 2nd was aimed at keeping the federal government from controlling the arming policies of the states so as to prevent federal control of munitions.

It's a right specifically granted to the states which they then abused by not actually regulating "the militia" at all.

And now we have a bunch of militias, really more terrorist cells, which are unregulated and running amok.

Again, I think that you make the mistake of thinking that "well-regulated" meant "well-governed" or "well-controlled". But why would personal ownership of a weapon be relevant to that sense of the expression? It made more sense if the authors were thinking of soldiers that could reload quickly and fire in a coordinated pattern. That is, the sense of "well-regulated" they intended was more probably "well-trained" in using single-shot muskets that took time to reload.

I thought Jarhyn made a good point, but when you look at the text, it is explicitly talking to individual rights. The Bill of Rights was originally meant to protect the States and People from the Federal Government. But if the 2nd Amendment was enumerating the responsibility of gun ownership to the states, it is oddly worded. Additionally, gun ownership wasn't all too controversial in a country with a frontier and very rural.

More, "in the interests of the functions of a well ordered militia (specifically not 'army'), the federal government shall not tell the states how they shall arm the militia and warehouse it's weapons."

What I see as happening is the states saying "ok, well, neither will we, so SUCK IT! Everybody is militia!"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I thought Jarhyn made a good point, but when you look at the text, it is explicitly talking to individual rights. The Bill of Rights was originally meant to protect the States and People from the Federal Government. But if the 2nd Amendment was enumerating the responsibility of gun ownership to the states, it is oddly worded. Additionally, gun ownership wasn't all too controversial in a country with a frontier and very rural.

More, "in the interests of the functions of a well ordered militia (specifically not 'army'), the federal government shall not tell the states how they shall arm the militia and warehouse it's weapons."

What I see as happening is the states saying "ok, well, neither will we, so SUCK IT! Everybody is militia!"

But was there that issue back then? Adversity between Feds and States over firearms? Regardless, the Articles of Confederation stated:

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

Reading the 2nd Amendment in context with the text of the Articles of Confederation does muddy the waters.

 

[Politesse]

The federal government does have direct control over state militias, though. This has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights, but Article 1 of the Constitution itself:

Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

This was later "interpreted" to apply to a national standing army, but its original intent is pretty obvious in the context of this discussion: ultimately, Congress has direct control in all matters pertaining to war, including the drawing and organization of state militias, at least in any matter of collective national defense.

 

[ZiprHead]

No need to argue over what was meant of the duties of the militias. They wrote it down.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

 

[Gospel]

Zoinks! There you have it, folks. It's time we start kicking down doors for those guns. It's not a complete loss, we'll leave you a National Guard recruitment pamphlet.

 

[Jarhyn]

I thought Jarhyn made a good point, but when you look at the text, it is explicitly talking to individual rights. The Bill of Rights was originally meant to protect the States and People from the Federal Government. But if the 2nd Amendment was enumerating the responsibility of gun ownership to the states, it is oddly worded. Additionally, gun ownership wasn't all too controversial in a country with a frontier and very rural.

More, "in the interests of the functions of a well ordered militia (specifically not 'army'), the federal government shall not tell the states how they shall arm the militia and warehouse it's weapons."

What I see as happening is the states saying "ok, well, neither will we, so SUCK IT! Everybody is militia!"

But was there that issue back then? Adversity between Feds and States over firearms? Regardless, the Articles of Confederation stated:

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

Reading the 2nd Amendment in context with the text of the Articles of Confederation does muddy the waters.

There didn't need to be an issue. At the time, they had no reason to think that this was a bad arrangement of just leaving it loose, and trusting states to organize as they were able.

As ZiprHead points out, later clarification was forthcoming.

 

[Gospel]

There didn't need to be an issue. At the time, they had no reason to think that this was a bad arrangement of just leaving it loose, and trusting states to organize as they were able.

My understanding is the culture was a bunch of Europeans doing the whole get rich or die trying thingamabob. They didn't foresee that half of America would change goals centuries later.

 

[bilby]

So, the issue here is that the federal government gave a right to the states that the states abused.

The abusive states just declared the whole state a militia and minimized requirements.

Sounds like the federal government must define "militia" legally, and crack down on illegal militias.

There is a whole mythology surrounding the interpretation of "militia" wrt the 2nd amendment. The NRA would have us believe that all military-aged citizens belong to it. Strictly speaking, our modern National Guard is a creation of the early 20th century. Before that, National Guard units and Militia units had been treated separately by state governments. Nowadays, a few states still maintain militias separate from their National Guard units, but they don't play much of a role. The modern National Guard has superseded them and is thoroughly under federal control.

My point is that weapons technology had a lot to do with what "well-regulated" actually meant in the 18th century. Breach-loading weapons weren't even invented until the early half of the 19th century, so reloading rifles was a big deal. Jacketed bullets and semiautomatic weapons came much later. Even in the Civil War, soldiers were still mostly using muzzle loaders. A few had breach-loading rifles, which could be reloaded much more quickly. So it was really necessary for people to practice using the weapon a lot and to learn how to use it in coordination with others. Nowadays, the term "well-regulated" tends to have the sense "well-organized" rather than "well-trained".

But what does a gun have to do with being well-organized? Any angry teenager can learn to use a modern military-style assault weapon and reload it quickly with high capacity magazines. Not a lot of training is necessary, just Youtube videos, web sites, and chat rooms to show them the basics. It wouldn't be that simple, if they needed to load powder, wadding, and ball down the barrel every time they had to fire the weapon.

I disagree.

I understand ‘well regulated’ in the time and context of the writing of the second amendment to mean “under the strict control of the authorities”.

It had little to do with organisation, and nothing to do with training; It is an admonition against militias that don’t act as loyal servants of the properly elected and constituted government - anarchists, rebels, and cultists.

The writers of the second amendment were probably particularly concerned about the possibility of pro-English militias who might seek to overturn their revolution, and separatists who might seek to break up their new country.

This interpretation is certainly a better fit with my understanding of the way that the English language has changed since the C18th.

Organisation is a more modern fetish, which arose from the industrial revolution; Training would at the time have been referred to using language such as “well drilled” - “regulated” specifically meant “commanded by legitimate authority”, and again, other meanings for the word commonly used today derive from the rise of the machines, that hadn’t yet occurred when the second amendment was penned.

The pre-industrial world was a very different place, and many new concepts that arose during the industrial revolution co-opted words that had previously been used quite differently. “Regulated” is certainly one such word. In a military context, it’s a reference to what today would be called “communication, command and control” - the ability of the central authority to direct the actions of individual units in the field.