# What is the source for "well-regulated militia" means "subject to a civilian authority"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 21, 2018, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246 "2018-02-21T03:59:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2018, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/21 "2018-02-23T21:10:32Z")
> [@Some\_Call\_Me.Tim](#): > > I express no opinion on your irrelevant tangent about a law that did not change the topic at hand, the United States’ definition of ‘militia’. …except as far as is necessary to declare it an irrelevant tangent, right? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2018, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/22 "2018-02-23T21:55:31Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > It occurs to me that, in addition to the effects you mention, it would open the door to legislation empowering the officials in command of the militia to establish controls over the arms in the hands of the militia members (such as requirements that they be stored in gun safes under locked conditions which will be released only upon the order of the proper authorities. To begin with). Only released upon the order of proper authorities sounds an awful lot like infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Through all these millions of discussions over the years, it’s pretty darn obvious self defense is a core reasoning behind the amendment. The discussion by the FFs, concurrent state constitutions and the history of the English laws all support it. The opposing side is purely playing pedantic with the final wording. I understand the wish for stronger gun laws but “That’s not what the 2nd amendment really says!” is just weak. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2018, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/23 "2018-02-23T22:03:44Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > You may not want to start a gun debate, but unfortunately if I kept it in GQ I would have to stand over it with a shotgun to keep one from breaking out, and I would like to go to bed now.😉 I dunno, it seems to me to be a lot more civil than debates over, say, Trump in Elections. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2018, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/24 "2018-02-23T22:21:37Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Only released upon the order of proper authorities sounds an awful lot like infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Through all these millions of discussions over the years, it’s pretty darn obvious self defense is a core reasoning behind the amendment. Such core reasoning that the FFs neglected to mention self defense anywhere in the constitution and bill of rights? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2018, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/25 "2018-02-23T22:28:43Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Such core reasoning that the FFs neglected to mention self defense anywhere in the constitution and bill of rights? They didn’t mention to breathe either, but I’m guessing they thought that was important. 😛 Seriously, they didn’t mention self-defense as important because they figured everyone already got that. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/26 "2018-02-27T14:36:28Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > However, the Militia Act of 1903 established that the militia is the National Guard, which I think most would consider to be well-regulated, notwithstanding the stories I’ve heard from Guard members about what really happens on that one weekend a month. If you reall want to feel the joy of firing full-auto, you have the right to go find a Guard recruiter and raise your right hand. It’s that simple. So military personnel can exercise a right in the Bill of Rights that others cannot. Interesting recipe for liberal democracy. The FF were actually more concerned about a standing army like the NG having weapons than regular folks. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/27 "2018-02-27T15:48:14Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Through all these millions of discussions over the years, it’s pretty darn obvious self defense is a core reasoning behind the amendment. That would be why the writers thought it necessary to specify explicitly that they were were referring to militia use. > [@](#): > > The opposing side is purely playing pedantic with the final wording. I understand the wish for stronger gun laws but “That’s not what the 2nd amendment really says!” is just weak. It says what it says, not what you wish it said. I know it’s frustrating. When is your next Guard drill? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/28 "2018-02-27T15:54:40Z")
Hey, if you’re allowed to ignore “shall not be infringed” then I think I’m allowed some leeway too. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/29 "2018-02-27T16:17:47Z")
Not ignoring it at all, just noting the limits within which the right is specified to exist, and outside of which the document is silent. You _don’t_ have leeway in misrepresenting views other than the one you want to hold. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/30 "2018-02-27T16:20:36Z")
I don’t think I’m misrepresenting anything and it’s also not a view I hold. I think it’s rather ridiculous to have owning weapons as part of your foundational rights. I have just come to the conclusion that was the original intent, stupid as it seems now. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/31 "2018-02-27T16:21:15Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > So military personnel can exercise a right in the Bill of Rights that others cannot. Interesting recipe for liberal democracy. Just \*who \*do you think composes the military, what oath do they take, and under whose authority are they commanded? Hint: \*Not \*some remote, alien tyrant occupier. How \*that \*view got to be commonplace never ceases to be baffling. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/32 "2018-02-27T16:28:30Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Only released upon the order of proper authorities sounds an awful lot like infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Correct. You can and should (according to the Constitution) regulate the militia, as long as it doesn’t infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms. Regulations on the militia that infringe on the rights of the people in general are not legit. In answer to the question in the title of the OP, the militia can be subject to a civilian authority, but the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not subject to that authority. The FF thought of a militia as a group who could be called up as necessary, and who would already be supplied with the necessary weapons. You don’t need to regulate the militia in that way - they could be called up and supplied with weapons by the calling authority - but regulating the militia by saying “we will supply the guns” cannot be accompanied by an associated demand that the people not be allowed to keep and bear their own arms. Because that right cannot be infringed. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/33 "2018-02-27T16:32:04Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Correct. You can and should (according to the Constitution) regulate the militia, as long as it doesn’t infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms. Regulations on the militia that infringe on the rights of the people in general are not legit. > > In answer to the question in the title of the OP, the militia can be subject to a civilian authority, but the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not subject to that authority. > > The FF thought of a militia as a group who could be called up as necessary, and who would already be supplied with the necessary weapons. You don’t need to regulate the militia in that way - they could be called up and supplied with weapons by the calling authority - but regulating the militia by saying “we will supply the guns” cannot be accompanied by an associated demand that the people not be allowed to keep and bear their own arms. Because that right cannot be infringed. > > Regards, > Shodan By that reasoning, anyone with a gun can be called up to serve in the militia whenever necessary. If they won’t go when called, then they are not part of a militia, much less a well regulated one. If they have a right to guns, then the govt has a right to call them to duty. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/34 "2018-02-27T16:39:41Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > By that reasoning, anyone with a gun can be called up to serve in the militia whenever necessary. > > If they won’t go when called, then they are not part of a militia, much less a well regulated one. > > If they have a right to guns, then the govt has a right to call them to duty. The government DOES have a right to call them to duty. It’s called conscription. Of course they’ll be assigned weapons, so obviously the 2nd is a bit of an anachronism now. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/35 "2018-02-27T17:04:16Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > If they won’t go when called, then they are not part of a militia, much less a well regulated one. So what? You don’t have to be part of a militia to have the right to keep and bear arms. That’s guaranteed to the people. As **CarnalK** says, you may or may not have to serve when called, but that has nothing to do with whether or not you can keep and bear arms. You always have that right - you are one of the people, whether you belong to a militia on active service or not. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a necessary precondition of a well-regulated militia, therefore it cannot be infringed, even as part of regulating the militia. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/36 "2018-02-27T17:43:08Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > The government DOES have a right to call them to duty. It’s called conscription. It wasn’t always conscription, it was often times just calling up the militia. > [@](#): > > Of course they’ll be assigned weapons, so obviously the 2nd is a bit of an anachronism now. This is true. > [@Shodan](#): > > So what? You don’t have to be part of a militia to have the right to keep and bear arms. That’s guaranteed to the people. But the reason to keep and bear arms is so that you can be part of a militia. > [@](#): > > As **CarnalK** says, you may or may not have to serve when called, but that has nothing to do with whether or not you can keep and bear arms. You always have that right - you are one of the people, whether you belong to a militia on active service or not. > > The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a necessary precondition of a well-regulated militia, therefore it cannot be infringed, even as part of regulating the militia. And a well regulated militia is necessary for the free state, so that part of the amendment shouldn’t be ignored, even as part of expanding gun rights to include things like self defense. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/37 "2018-02-27T21:10:57Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > But the reason to keep and bear arms is so that you can be part of a militia. “Can be” - not “only if you already are.” > [@](#): > > And a well regulated militia is necessary for the free state, so that part of the amendment shouldn’t be ignored, even as part of expanding gun rights to include things like self defense. No, it shouldn’t be ignored. But including self-defense isn’t an expansion of gun rights. The right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed. You can use your gun for hunting, but not hunting does not mean your right to keep and bear arms can be infringed. You can use your gun for self-defense, but owning it for any other reason does not affect your right to keep and bear arms. You can have a gun for any reason, or for no reason. Because owning a gun for no reason is guaranteed. It is keeping and bearing the arms that is the right. The FF thought this was a necessary condition for having a well-regulated militia. Maybe you don’t agree. Too bad - amend the Constitution if you can. Until then, the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/38 "2018-02-27T21:20:10Z")
And no mention that one of the biggest reasons we needed to have everyone armed and thought their might be an insufficient number of arms was because we were afraid of slave rebellion. THAT was what the militias were for - keeping the darkies in their place should they rise up and kill the white people - as had been experienced in the Caribbean. That is also made very clear in the historical documents. (And militias were called up to quell slave rebellions on several occasions. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/39 "2018-02-27T21:42:56Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > And no mention that one of the biggest reasons we needed to have everyone armed and thought their might be an insufficient number of arms was because we were afraid of slave rebellion. THAT was what the militias were for - keeping the darkies in their place should they rise up and kill the white people - as had been experienced in the Caribbean. That is also made very clear in the historical documents. > > (And militias were called up to quell slave rebellions on several occasions. So how has it changed? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246/40 "2018-02-27T21:53:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > “Can be” - not “only if you already are.” > > No, it shouldn’t be ignored. But including self-defense isn’t an expansion of gun rights. The right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed. You can use your gun for hunting, but not hunting does not mean your right to keep and bear arms can be infringed. You can use your gun for self-defense, but owning it for any other reason does not affect your right to keep and bear arms. > > You can have a gun for any reason, or for no reason. Because owning a gun for no reason is guaranteed. It is keeping and bearing the arms that is the right. > > The FF thought this was a necessary condition for having a well-regulated militia. Maybe you don’t agree. Too bad - amend the Constitution if you can. Until then, the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land. The FF also thought that a well regulated militia was necessary for a free state. > [@Dangerosa](#): > > And no mention that one of the biggest reasons we needed to have everyone armed and thought their might be an insufficient number of arms was because we were afraid of slave rebellion. THAT was what the militias were for - keeping the darkies in their place should they rise up and kill the white people - as had been experienced in the Caribbean. That is also made very clear in the historical documents. > > (And militias were called up to quell slave rebellions on several occasions. Well, and to fight off the native residents who may not take too kindly to having the land taken from them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-source-for-well-regulated-militia-means-subject-to-a-civilian-authority/809246.md?page=3)