I do not think that word means what you think it means

November 7, 2005 3:01 PM

2nd amendment filter: Did "regulated" mean something completely different at the time?

It seems paradoxical that in order to have a "well regulated" militia, the solution is no regulation of firearm ownership. That is, if "well regulated" means orderly or under strict rules or control. But regulation has a specific meaning when applied to firearms. For instance, a new double barrel rifle goes through a pains taking process called "regulation", whereby it is adjusted so that both the left and the right barrels both hit in the same place. here are google results for "double rifle" and regulation.
Is it possible that regulation was a military term for "sighted in" during the time of the constitution? This would change the meaning to "a militia that can hit what they aim at", which makes more sense as far as the logic of the sentence.
No dictionary seems to have this sort of definition for regulated thought (I checked OED), yet google shows it to be in use currently. The heyday of double rifles was 100 years ago, which may indicate that its firearms usage is an older relic. Also, there is a type of antique clock called a "regulator", again refering to precision rather rules or laws.

posted by 445supermag to writing & language (22 comments total)

Did you try looking up the phrase "well-regulated" in the OED?
posted by smackfu at 3:16 PM on November 7, 2005

It says "frequently combined" but give no examples. It does show the phase "regulated troops", probably the origin of "regular troop" and "regulars".
posted by 445supermag at 3:26 PM on November 7, 2005

The OED does have an "obs. rare" citation for "regulated":

regulated: ... b. Of troops: Properly disciplined.

The single citation given is from 1690. So some more research would be required to see if this meaning was still in usage nearly 100 years later.
posted by Johnny Assay at 3:27 PM on November 7, 2005

posted by Rothko at 3:27 PM on November 7, 2005

I'm not sure about the late 18th century, but in the G-Funk era, the term "regulate" definitely refers to a proper use of firearms, the phrase "proper use" being culturally relative. Just ask Warren G.

In all seriousness, I believe that "well-regulated" is a modifier to be contrasted with "untrained" or "ragtag." And yes, on preview, from the same root as "regular troops." (In contrast to volunteers.)
posted by TonyRobots at 3:28 PM on November 7, 2005

posted by Rothko at 3:30 PM on November 7, 2005

"...The debate between the collectivist and the individualist
interpretations of the 2nd has often focused on the meaning of "well
regulated" in the opening phrase "well regulated Militia". The
collectivists claim this this refers to a Militia which is tightly
controlled by the government, deducing this from the etymology of
"regulated" which relates to "ruled". However, this ignores the usage
of the word "regulate" in which the "rule" refers to the proper
operations of a device rather than to man-made laws. We still see this
in the word "regular", which in many contexts means "properly operating..."

Here
posted by 517 at 3:32 PM on November 7, 2005

I think the idea, at the time, was that the army would be citizen owned and controlled, but ready to be called up for national defense. There was a fear of a "standing army" that could enable a military coupe d'etat, so that counted out a professional army like we have today. The early Union had extremely limited taxing power, so there wasn't much money to pay for such an army, even if it was allowed. But it was clear that some form of defense was required, so the idea of a managed militta stuck.

Some of the framers thought revolutions were very good and healthy (Jefferson?) and argued that citizens should be able to overthrow an oppressive government. Today the idea that handguns or even mobile machine guns could be useful in overthrowing the state is completely silly.

IIRC, rifled guns did not become common until the Civil War. During the revolutionary war, the function of guns was primarly to make a loud noise and emit dark smoke. Someone with a better military history background than I could probably expand significantly on this.
posted by b1tr0t at 3:35 PM on November 7, 2005

Today the idea that handguns or even mobile machine guns could be useful in overthrowing the state is completely silly.

Seriously? If the population at large was angry enough, small arms like these would be useful to them. Better than pitchforks at least.
posted by knave at 3:45 PM on November 7, 2005

Some of the framers thought revolutions were very good and healthy (Jefferson?) and argued that citizens should be able to overthrow an oppressive government. Today the idea that handguns or even mobile machine guns could be useful in overthrowing the state is completely silly.

Seems like all you'd need is some RPGs and IEDs, if you're dispersed among the population, as these revolting Americans would be.

But yes, "well regulated" could mean either "well run, managed" or "well running, effective"
posted by delmoi at 3:56 PM on November 7, 2005

I think the qualifier "well regulated" is just meant to distinguish between a useful militia with training and military discipline and an armed mob. Militias had something of a bad reputation in the colonial and revolutionary periods, so many were little more than armed social (read drinking) clubs. The excellent service of some militias during the revolution began to improve the reputation, but the drafters of the Bill of Rights still felt they had to make the distinction. I think. Maybe.

Of course, anyone who pretends to be sure what that strange, almost contradictory sentence that is the Second Amendment means is kidding themselves.

You might look around at The Founders' Constitution for some background reading.
posted by LarryC at 4:08 PM on November 7, 2005

During the revolutionary war, the function of guns was primarly to make a loud noise and emit dark smoke.

No, smooth-bore muskets could be quite effective at the close quarters of 18th century battle. David Hackett Fisher's magnificent book, Washington's Crossing, has tons of examples of massed and even aimed fire cutting down ranks of men.
posted by LarryC at 4:11 PM on November 7, 2005

Johnsons Dictionary from 1755 would be a better resource than the OED. This was the Dictionary used my many of the founding fathers. Supreme Court Justices have cited that dictionary in decisions they have made in interpreting the constitution.
posted by piratebowling at 4:30 PM on November 7, 2005

Of course, anyone who pretends to be sure what that strange, almost contradictory sentence that is the Second Amendment means is kidding themselves.

Or, they could have read The Federalist Papers.
posted by knave at 4:46 PM on November 7, 2005

Thank you, knave....you beat me to it. Sometimes people forget that there were other documents written that gives insight into the original intent of the framers. Antonin Scalia, when asked about "what they meant," always says "read The Federalist Papers." By the way, he says that a recent survey showed that only 5% of law students have read TFP. Scalia says that the figure is a "catastrophe" for our country. I have to agree.

-
posted by Independent Scholarship at 4:56 PM on November 7, 2005

OK, I'll bite. It has been a few years, but leafing again through the Federalist Papers has not made it any clearer to me what the Framers meant by "a well-regulated militia." The passage that comes the closest is this from Hamilton in Federalist 29: "If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security." Here Hamilton was arguing for federal control over the militias in times of national emergency. But it still is not clear to me that "well regulated" means "regulated by the federal government." And even if it did, that would be Hamilton's opinion, he is hardly the most representative of the Framers.

But it is probably the case that Knave and I.S. know the Federalist Papers better than I. What am I missing?

As to the endless veneration of the Federalist Papers--balderdash, I say. The Federalist Papers are not some impartial examination of the Constitution by those who drafted it, were partisan campaign documents to promote its ratification. Valuable, yes, but not an infallible guide to original intent. Philip Kurland, an amazing constitutional scholar and coeditor of the Founder's Constitution, called them "the Madison Avenue papers."
posted by LarryC at 6:12 PM on November 7, 2005

Well, I just happen to have Johnson's Dictionary right here. The third defintion of regular: "Instituted or initiated according to established forms or discipline: as, a regular doctor; regular troops."
posted by MrMoonPie at 6:32 PM on November 7, 2005

I've done a fair bit of research on this, being a gun owner who frequently enjoys talking/arguing with non-gun-owners.

The term regulated does not refer to governmental regulation in terms of control. Rather, it means something approximate to "well-trained" and "well-disciplined". In the early days of the Union, citizens (white, male) in several states were actually required to own a firearm, ammunition, a backpack, and some other essentials that every soldier would need. In some states, they were also required to show up every once and a while and march around.

The early Americans (white, male) essentially believed that the people themselves must be responsible for their own defense, and talked primarily of the militia (not the army). Jefferson (my idol) especially makes frequent mention of firearms playing an important part in both sport and rebellion.

During the revolutionary war, the function of guns was primarly to make a loud noise and emit dark smoke.

Excuse me!?

One of the very few military advantages we had over the English in that war was our supply of sharpshooters armed with rifles. I'm not claiming that it won the war, that rifles played a decisive part in every battle, that the English are bad shots, or that every American man was Davy Crocket. But, the fact remains that we had some extremely excellent marksmen, and they were armed with rifles. And, black-powder rifles, as many a black-powder hunter will tell you, are nothing to sneeze at.

Also, consider something for a moment: a smooth-bore musket can be modeled easily with a shotgun (smooth both, and medium-to-large shotguns match large muskets in bore diameter). While modern slugs are usually shaped in such a way that they spin like a rifle-round as they fly, slugs of just a few decades ago were not. And, I promise you they worked just fine.

Also, at least a little of our tactics in some battles came from the fact that our irregulars were often armed with their own rifles (many of them hunted, remember). The rate of fire of a rifle is much, much lower than that of a musket, since the charging/loading process requires much more time.
posted by Netzapper at 6:34 PM on November 7, 2005

Take a look here:

The Meaning Of The Words In The Second Amendment

Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment

Alexander Hamilton on Gun Control: The Federalist Papers

-
posted by Independent Scholarship at 6:50 PM on November 7, 2005

All I need to know.
posted by Scoo at 6:59 PM on November 7, 2005

However, this ignores the usage of the word "regulate" in which the "rule" refers to the proper operations of a device rather than to man-made laws.

None of which has a thing to do with this eighteenth-century usage, which is all about training and discipline. In that context, Hamilton's distinction is about whether the regulation should be top-down (akin to the current Swiss model, where you're given a rifle and told to show up for refreshers) or bottom-up (where individuals and local communities are responsible).

My take is that there's absolutely no judgement in the wording on who does the regulating, or how the regulating happens. In fact, it's put forward as a given. My guess is that the intention was to leave it to the states, hence the uncharacteristically crappy ambiguity by comparison to, say, the Virginia State Constitution, where it's very much spelt out.
posted by holgate at 7:12 AM on November 8, 2005

uncharacteristically crappy ambiguity

Exactly! If they had just added one more sentence, it would surely be more clear what was intended.
posted by LarryC at 3:59 PM on November 8, 2005