"A well-regulated militia"

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

Greetings Cecil and staff,

I appreciated Cecil’s reply in http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_123.html dealing with the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A very well reasoned response to an emotionally charged subject.

In the second part of the article, the question is as follows:
“Why is it that you, as well as the NRA, have different copies of the United States Constitution from my own? The Second Amendment in my own library clearly starts out with the words “A well-regulated militia . . .” What is well-regulated about a private citizen with a stash of guns in his basement? The opening words of this amendment seem to clearly indicate that the possession of guns was not meant to be beyond control. --Ed Cohen, Chicago”

Webster’s New American Dictionary (my great-grandmother’s copy from the late 1800’s) defines “regulate” as “To adjust to a state of constancy”. After reading some of George Mason’s arguments for the Virginia Declaration of Rights, I believe that “well-regulated” in this instance means “well-practiced”. What do you think?

2

Welcome to the board John! I suppose your suggestion is a possibility. I’m not familiar enough with english at the time of the Bill of Rights to say for sure.

Postulating that your interpretation is the right:
[ul]
[li]would that change the gun debate if one were to interpret the second amendment in that way?[/li][li]should that one adhere to the “original intent” of the writers of the constitution ?[/li][/ul]
I realize that a discussion like this has a great potential of going “out of bounds”, so let’s try to keep focussed as narrowly as possible please. Otherwise we’ll have to move the discussion to the Great Debates forum.