Indeed. When reading contemporary debates about the militia (the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers), the term used to mean “controlled, subject to rules, etc.” is disciplined. In the Federalist #29, Hamilton answered charges that giving the federal government authority over the militia would lead to the regimentation of society (note that militia is a plural noun, and the use of the term well-regulated militia):
“Well regulated” in the Second refers to a militia needed for “a free State”. The latter phrase refers to a country rather than a particular state in the Union, as several of the states had militias operating as slave patrols and local law enforcement. Several of these militias were also “well regulated.”
The implication is that the Second is calling for something more than what states had already been doing, i.e., forming and training militias. Rather, the Second is calling for trained militias to ensure that the country remains free. That means the same militias will have to follow orders from the government when needed to ensure that freedom.
That’s why the Second is connected to Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts. The latter called for mandatory military service for male citizens of a certain age range.
Tell you what I’m willing to compromise and repeal half of the second amendment, the part about the militia.
My take is that “a free State” meant one that does not have a standing army (which was automatically equated with tyranny). Without a standing army, the only alternative is armed civilians organized for self-defense. We’ve learned to appreciate the honor and sacrifice of soldiers but that’s a fairly recent development. At the time the British and their colonial offshoots had a loathing and contempt of professional soldiers- they were regarded as a cross between mercenaries and slaves of the state. To be a professional (non-officer) soldier was considered the antithesis of being a free citizen. The military was about as well-regarded then as it was in America during the Vietnam era. That’s why Hamilton had to address fears that Article One Section Eight might amount to a national draft.
Did the government pay all those bar owners for all those kegs of beer that were smashed when Prohibition took place?
The catch is that “tyranny” might apply to all levels of governance. That means not just a union of states but even state laws, with state militias used for law enforcement, and in several cases, slave patrols.
For the draft, it was probably not so much Art. 1 Sec. 8 but the Militia Acts that called for mandatory military service.
I’m also not sure why the British loathed professional soldiers, as the pattern from that time to the present has involved the formation of standing armies. That’s why even the Militia Acts were ultimately watered down, leading to the National Guard and very expensive military forces.
Reading the 46th Federalist Paper. It shows Madison’s thinking about militias, and it doesn’t match what you posted above.
What do you think is wrong about the militia half? :dubious:
Watch ElvisL1ves trot out the old “nothing else they wrote matters, only the final text of the Second Amendment” argument.
It leads some fanatical people to mistakenly believe that possession of firearms is dependent on armed service. 
I expected as much. Thanks for the heads up.
You know there are people that claim no person can actually own land* and that people are free to use land as they want as a natural right. Are they wrong?
*Land referring to open spaces not your house so for example they feel it is their natural right to poach rabbits in that 10ac pasture you own.
That’s a pretty high concept, given that many animals claim territory and defend that territory. That’s why property ownership is often considered a natural right, even though it works best when you have a government that can define exactly how it works.
Yes
Except -
Some animals claim and defend territory on an individual basis.
Some claim and defend territory on a communal basis - on behalf of the pack, the herd, the mob, what have you.
And some are not territorial at all.
Humans (in fact, I think, all primates who are territorial) are in the second group; territory is collective, not individual.
So those humans who insist that their personal claim to particular territory is superior to the rights of the community over the same territory are sinning against nature. We must burn them.
Humans are both social and individual, so historically humans have done both. And in the case of collective land, it has always involved relatively small collectives. There is no animal that serves its species as a whole, and humans are no different. We serve those we know and love. The largest collective unit that has ever been cohesive for purposes of owning property is the tribe. Land owned by a nation of 300 million is just land owned by the government and controlled by an unelected bureaucracy and its generally perceived that way by the public, especially those who live near that land.
I think you’re still stuck in a mindset of ownership; you’re treating “ownership” as a natural characteristic which must adhere in all land, whereas it’s a societal construct. Different societies construct it differently, and some don’t construct it all all.
Lots of cultures have a concept of common land. Common land isn’t “owned by the state”; it’s common. And lots of culture have a concept of land use and occupation in which individual rights to exploit particular areas of land exist, but they are subordinated to and dependent on common rights. In these cultures it;s not helpful to think of individuals “owning” the land which they occupy or utilise; their relationship to the land is quite different from anything that we would call ownership. And the exercise of common rights over land doesn’t have to be vested in the central government; it can be done quite locally, but still on behalf of the community.
It makes a difference what’s in the Constitution and what is not, doesn’t it? For instance, the militia clause is in there, even if it doesn’t say what you wish it did.
No, only the claim to a Constitutional right to do so.
No Middle Left Unexcluded, right?
That makes no sense. It’s like saying you have a right to a police car, but only if you join the police, That’s not a right at all.
The reference to militias was not made to defend the right to bear arms. Rather, it’s the other way round: the right to bear arms was used to justify mandatory military service.
And it became moot when we changed our minds and established a standing army anyway. You could say it still guarantees the National Guard’s right to have armaments (well, duh), as well as indirectly requiring it to exist. For other purposes of gun ownership, the Constitution is simply silent.
Sure it is. The 2nd guarantees the right of We The People to have an effective military force when we need one, to protect our free State from invasion and insurrection. That’s from, not of.