Second Amendment Language

The Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Politicians omit and embellish facts. Court is not about “the whole truth” but rather only those facts a judge and the lawyers decide to present — and as they see fit to present them. The press is not “truthful” (as in the full truth) but whatever facts and statements the reporters can squeeze into limited space and time, as influenced by biases. I know texts are never “the truth” nor is my reading of them likely a complete appreciation for what was written.

“A well-regulated militia…” reads the Second Amendment. Does anyone know what “regulated” means? It’s not what most people assume it means. “Regular” meant well-prepared, or well-equipped, and ready at all times. A standing army. Hence, a “regular” army is better than a “guard” on-call. Regulated does not mean “governed” in all instances, just as “run” does not always mean something people in track meets do. “Regulated” can mean “well-prepared” or “well-maintained” or even “well-regarded” in eighteenth-century English.

Although one group can insist the constitution applies to a “professional and regulated standing army,” another would point to the notion of a “well-equipped temporary brigade.” Militia meant “standing army” as often as “temporary corps” in the literature of the time.

So, words mean too many things and result in work for lawyers and linguists, I suppose.

What the Second Amendment “means” to me is shaped as much by my time (now) as it is by my politics. Words change in a living language.

Looking back through history, the Second Amendment has evolved with political views. In the Old West, it wasn’t uncommon for a local community to ban the public carrying of weapons. What changed? The firearms industry created a mythology of the safety and security offered by owning weapons. Marketing became reality, became a political ideology.

Owning a weapon might be a Constitutional right, especially if we believe in limited infringement on the individual and the market. But can a right be construed as limited for the public welfare?

Can we infringe on the right to bear arms if the owner is unwilling to learn the ways of a “well-regulated militia” volunteer? Can we infringe on the right at all, or is the last portion of the Amendment primary?

These are questions with answers that might change with time. That’s the nature of our system in which we now consider many punishments cruel and unusual that were accepted in the eighteenth century.

See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

[amazon_link asins=’0393345831,1621575802,0062242725,082236123X’ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’Tameri-20′ marketplace=’US’ link_id=’f03f9f62-f2a0-11e7-bc7b-35986d9cfc05′]

Photo by archer10 (Dennis) 127M Views