How is it that most reasonable people can agree that 18th century sensibilities don’t necessarily apply well to 21st century society? Most people accept that slavery is bad, voting rights for all are good, child labour bad, etc… But dare suggest that prolific and relatively easy access to guns among citizens is a bad 18th century idea and you’ve got people screaming “but my rights!”
I don’t buy that definition of well regulated. It is one of those things that becomes a truism by repetition. Somebody made it up, it sounds good to some people, and by repetition it became “true”.
Likewise the notion that every male is a member of the militia is pure fanciful thinking. Nowadays our militia is the National Guard. A proper reading of the 2nd is that the National Guard can’t be disarmed. Your “right” to buy assault weapons, not so much.
Other than really, really, really not wanting it to be true, why do you not believe the meaning has changed? Have you read 18th century documents where the phrase was used to indicate “bound by rules and laws?” Can you point us to those documents? Meaning does shift over time, you know, however inconvenient you find this instance.
I think it’s silly in 2014, but federal law explicitly says that the militia of the United States is every male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 (and women in the National Guard). (If anybody knows how, and I know it’s almost certainly not possible, I’d like to know where I can submit my resignation.)
Can you point to language scholars that support your interpretation? This bit about it meaning in good working order has about as much credibility as the old balls off a brass monkey origin fable.
One of the reasons was the US moving from almost all rural to almost all urban. Guns were and are part of the background in the country, but as people moved closer together, what formerly was taken for granted started being legislated away in the interests of public safety and urban control.
Apart from that, how refreshing to see yet another debate between the Fascist Gun Grabbers and the Penis Compensating Neanderthals. I’m sure this one will resolve the issues at last.
Urbanization had indeed a lot to do with it IMO. “Check your guns at the door” was already around in Old West times. As to the “how come it happened”, Lord Feldon points to the basic legal component: the notion that the Bill of Rights is and has always been ex-proprio-vigore absolutely extensive to all cases everywhere is something of a pious patriotic myth. For most of the nation’s history it was presumed that states had wide gun control faculties within their general police power.
Some states even had Established Religions in the early days of the Republic. The BoR was originally a constraint only on the Federal Government. For example, note that the phrase: Congress shall make no law. Congress. Not the states.
For what it is worth, here is what the OED has to say regarding the definition of “regulated”:
Note that the second definition is considered obsolete. However, the OED provides quotations using the second definition during the years 1650-1816 which includes the era during which the second amendment was drafted. Regarding the “Cf. regular adj. 7” we have the following definition of “regular”:
Because, stereotypes notwithstanding, many Americans, including some of the politicians and judges, are actually quite sensible and intelligent people.
Because a lot of people look at all the gun violence in places like NYC and DC and want to do something to reduce it. Some people thought banning personal possession of handguns would help, and the cost to individuals would not be so great. Getting shot is a big problem. Not being able to own a gun in NYC, not so big a problem.
Of course, like bans of drugs, alcohol and porn, banning gun ownership didn’t actually seem to work that well in reducing gun violence. It’s frustrating, however, to have a problem without a solution. (Or, to be more precise, a solution that is complicated, multifaceted, and difficult.)
