OmSigDAVID wrote:oralloy wrote:Advocate wrote:Dave, something that you intentionally ignore is that your lexicographers and grammarians would not know that there is no provision in the constitution, or in federal law in general, that includes a reason. Thus, the words "well-regulated militia" are operative relative to the right provided in 2A.
They are operative with regard to the requirements of the first half of the Second Amendment.
During the centuries leading up to the end of the 1700s,
there were
2 kinds of militia,
DISTINCT from one another, and potentially able to enter military conflict
with one another:
1 ) "Well regulated" militia were private, like the Fairfax County Militia
organization formed by George Mason and George Washington
WITHOUT
the blessing of the King of England, against whose militia
these militia went into conflict; there already
EXISTED a Colonial Virginia Militia,
which were
"SELECTED" militia.
Other examples of well regulated militia, private militia,
were the Free French in WWII, or the merchants' militia in the L.A. riots,
after the police ran away, or the many religious militia in Afganistan,
or the militia of those 2 little cigar smoking boys with automatic rifles
(AK 47s) in Malasia in the 1990s, fighting the Thais.
Militia are the people themselves, acting in concert, in the absence of any government.
Altho thay did not vote to do it,
in practical effect, the heroic resisting passengers of United Airlines Flite 93
organized themselves into a private militia armed with a snack cart
(inasmuch as gun control successfully prevailed,
leaving the victims unarmed, and permitting the hi jacking to happen).
2 ) Selected Militia, such as the government sponsored and controlled fellows
of Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution.
David
A select militia is one that only encompasses a portion of the citizenry, instead of all of the citizenry. The idea is that a small group can be trained to a much higher degree of skill than the general citizenry -- if the entire populace devoted too much time to military training, society wouldn't be able to produce anything.
Every time I've heard the Framers use the terms "well-regulated militia" they were referring to a militia that had the training and skill necessary to fight as an effective unit (as opposed to fighting as a bunch of uncoordinated individuals).
Both terms can be seen in this excerpt from Federalist 29, where Alexander Hamilton argues that only a select militia can manage the training necessary to become a well-regulated militia:
[list][quote]"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
[URL=http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm]http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm[/URL][/quote]
[/list]
I don't see any evidence that they meant well-regulated to exclude government control, or meant government control to extend only to select militias.
In the end, the Framers didn't take Hamilton up on his proposal for a select militia, and instead made all white males of military age members of the militia. But despite this, they also made the militia a government-controlled body.
Note the law they passed to organize the first militia:
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/UniformMilitia1790.html
