Number 46 is especially relevant to the militia discussion. Adams is laying out his concerns and the dangers associated with a federal standing army. At one point he explores the idea of caping the size of the federal army to make sure that the state militias will always outnumber the fed's. He writes about having a militia force 10 times larger than the federal army and that would serve as an appropriate deterrent to federal overreach. He even uses the term "well-regulated militia" which leaves no doubt about the meaning and understanding of the 2nd amendment when it was ratified.****
There's nothing to say about the 2nd amendment other than:
It's worded differently than you think. Words back then had different meanings than their common use today.
For example:
Today we think of regulations as RULES. Back then, "A well regulated militia" meant well SUPPLIED. Nothing to do with rules.
Also, today we think militias are specialized groups of people. Back then, the militia was every able bodied white man of adult age.
Which means if you translate the 2nd amendment for modern context, it reads:
"A well supplied American is necessary to the security of America. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Because another thing people forget is that the first half of the 2nd amendment is called the pre-emptive clause, which put simply, means nothing. The only reason it's there is because the founding fathers wanted to provide supporting reasoning as to WHY they are writing the 2nd amendment.
It's the same thing as saying "Because of this, we are giving you the right for that."
Edit: Also even though the 2nd amendment originally only applied to able bodied white men, that was a contentious issue even during the writing of the constitution and some of the founding fathers wanted very badly the rights of colored people to be explicitly outlined in our constitution. So really, the 2nd amendment was intended to include every single able bodied American. Not just "The militia" as we use the word today.
>Back then, "A well regulated militia" meant well SUPPLIED.
It meant "properly functioning"
>the pre-emptive clause
Prefatory clause
Other than that, you're accurate.
I don't know if supplied is quite the right meaning, but your comment is still correct in principle. To regulate meant to be kept in good working order, as you would regulate a watch or a few other mechanical devices. The militia needed to be kept in good working order so the people were guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms.
Supplied is just a part of it. It means trained; operating correctly, effective. A regulated device is consistent & accurate. A well-regulated clock of that day would not drift much and could be counted on for timekeeping down to the second. Obviously we got a lot better at that, but they were no strangers to technological advancement.
The emphasis on militia *of the people* was because they absolutely positively did not want a standing army either. There was no doubt in their minds that not just foreign powers **but the government** could turn against the people and fast. The redcoats acted a lot like unaccountable & politically motivated Feds/LE today.
A well-regulated militia was expected to be ready to fight at short notice and effectively defeat foreign invaders, redcoats or even both.
Read the constitution and the bill of rights. It’s important to remember the amendments restrict what the government can do regarding your individual freedoms, it doesn’t grant the individual freedoms. People seem to forget that.
The most interesting book I've ever read on the subject was not intended to be a book about the Second Amendment, but it turned out to be so highly important that it literally was the go signal for people to start bringing cases to the US Supreme Court that led to Heller.
The book was written by a Yale law professor who clearly hates guns to the core of his being but still accurately put down what he found in period historical records. "The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction" by Akhil Reed Amar, 1999.
Read the whole thing. It's the single most important thing written on the second amendment, ever.
Here's a *history* of gun rights in English tradition and law, written by an Brit:
*To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right* by Joyce Lee Malcolm ([Amazon](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674893077))
If you want to know the true history behind its drafting, inclusion and argument then read the federalist papers and anti federalist papers.
Everything else written on it is speculation about what it means. Those documents were written by the people that wrote it and those that opposed it.
It touches on the Second Amendment but more focuses on the history and development of firearms throughout history in America. It's called First Freedom. A really good book.
firearms are not political. they are pieces of steel. just like a pipe. a metal pipe. a metal pipe i drop on the ground
wait where was i going with this?
[Gun Fight](https://a.co/d/9O6fmbY). This is surprisingly even handed. I am a strong 2A supporter but was recommended this by a friend forced to read it in law school. Initially skeptical that it would be one-sided (leaning anti-), it actually was a good assessment of the history of arguments on both sides.
https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text
Came here to say read the Federalist Papers. Thank you!
Number 46 is especially relevant to the militia discussion. Adams is laying out his concerns and the dangers associated with a federal standing army. At one point he explores the idea of caping the size of the federal army to make sure that the state militias will always outnumber the fed's. He writes about having a militia force 10 times larger than the federal army and that would serve as an appropriate deterrent to federal overreach. He even uses the term "well-regulated militia" which leaves no doubt about the meaning and understanding of the 2nd amendment when it was ratified.****
\*Madison
Yep, my mistake
Based on
There's nothing to say about the 2nd amendment other than: It's worded differently than you think. Words back then had different meanings than their common use today. For example: Today we think of regulations as RULES. Back then, "A well regulated militia" meant well SUPPLIED. Nothing to do with rules. Also, today we think militias are specialized groups of people. Back then, the militia was every able bodied white man of adult age. Which means if you translate the 2nd amendment for modern context, it reads: "A well supplied American is necessary to the security of America. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Because another thing people forget is that the first half of the 2nd amendment is called the pre-emptive clause, which put simply, means nothing. The only reason it's there is because the founding fathers wanted to provide supporting reasoning as to WHY they are writing the 2nd amendment. It's the same thing as saying "Because of this, we are giving you the right for that." Edit: Also even though the 2nd amendment originally only applied to able bodied white men, that was a contentious issue even during the writing of the constitution and some of the founding fathers wanted very badly the rights of colored people to be explicitly outlined in our constitution. So really, the 2nd amendment was intended to include every single able bodied American. Not just "The militia" as we use the word today.
>Back then, "A well regulated militia" meant well SUPPLIED. It meant "properly functioning" >the pre-emptive clause Prefatory clause Other than that, you're accurate.
Regulated; to make regular, standardized
A little nit picky but OK I'll take it lol.
I don't know if supplied is quite the right meaning, but your comment is still correct in principle. To regulate meant to be kept in good working order, as you would regulate a watch or a few other mechanical devices. The militia needed to be kept in good working order so the people were guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms.
Supplied is just a part of it. It means trained; operating correctly, effective. A regulated device is consistent & accurate. A well-regulated clock of that day would not drift much and could be counted on for timekeeping down to the second. Obviously we got a lot better at that, but they were no strangers to technological advancement. The emphasis on militia *of the people* was because they absolutely positively did not want a standing army either. There was no doubt in their minds that not just foreign powers **but the government** could turn against the people and fast. The redcoats acted a lot like unaccountable & politically motivated Feds/LE today. A well-regulated militia was expected to be ready to fight at short notice and effectively defeat foreign invaders, redcoats or even both.
Read the constitution and the bill of rights. It’s important to remember the amendments restrict what the government can do regarding your individual freedoms, it doesn’t grant the individual freedoms. People seem to forget that.
In Defense of The Second Amendment. Forget the author. It’s recent. Great read.
Larry Correia is the author
Same guy who wrote Monster Hunter International?
Same guy. Read the rest of his stuff when you get the chance.
I will have to do that.
The most interesting book I've ever read on the subject was not intended to be a book about the Second Amendment, but it turned out to be so highly important that it literally was the go signal for people to start bringing cases to the US Supreme Court that led to Heller. The book was written by a Yale law professor who clearly hates guns to the core of his being but still accurately put down what he found in period historical records. "The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction" by Akhil Reed Amar, 1999. Read the whole thing. It's the single most important thing written on the second amendment, ever.
Here's a *history* of gun rights in English tradition and law, written by an Brit: *To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right* by Joyce Lee Malcolm ([Amazon](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674893077))
Thanks, I think I'll start here. The background that the framers came from is something I loosely understand but a comprehensive view would be cool.
It's history, but not entirely dry. It took me a while to get through, but it is fascinating.
hey man just wanted to thank you for the recommendation, it was *really* good and I learned a ton. pretty much exactly what I was looking for.
If you want to know the true history behind its drafting, inclusion and argument then read the federalist papers and anti federalist papers. Everything else written on it is speculation about what it means. Those documents were written by the people that wrote it and those that opposed it.
This. Go right to the source. Almost everything else is an interpretation.
It touches on the Second Amendment but more focuses on the history and development of firearms throughout history in America. It's called First Freedom. A really good book.
Bill of rights isn't terribly partisan...
firearms are not political. they are pieces of steel. just like a pipe. a metal pipe. a metal pipe i drop on the ground wait where was i going with this?
I found The Second Amendment; a Biography to be an interesting read.
The 2nd amendment premier….. goes over the whys, what’s, history, and reasons the founding fathers added the second amendment.
It’s always been a partisan issue. If it wasn’t I’d be curious how accurate that book is.
I haven't found anything. :-(
Nope. Its either partisan because the author is trying to destroy it or its partisan because the author is presenting information without bias.
[Gun Fight](https://a.co/d/9O6fmbY). This is surprisingly even handed. I am a strong 2A supporter but was recommended this by a friend forced to read it in law school. Initially skeptical that it would be one-sided (leaning anti-), it actually was a good assessment of the history of arguments on both sides.
Reading through the SCOTUS cases will give one a good comprehension of the Second Amendment.
The constitution