I don't know if I missed something, or maybe I'm just over thinking things, but here it goes. Whenever an anti brings up that the 2A only applies to "A well regulated militia" how come I never hear anybody mention the Militia Act of 1903? There is a provision in this bill that mentions the Unorganized Militia. The Unorganized Militia is basically any able bodied man between the ages of 17 and 45 that can be called into service by the President with at least 24 hours notice. Wouldn't that make everyone who signed up for the draft a Militia member? Now, they may come back and say "Unorganized is unregulated," but that's Not the case. If I'm reading this correctly, the Act regulates service period, pay, and provision for said militia. Now let's look at the definitions of unorganized, and regulated.

 

 

un·or·gan·ized

[uhn-awr-guh-nahyzd] Show IPA

adjective

1.

not organized; without organic structure.

2.

not formed into an organized or systematized whole: an unorganized essay.

3.

without definite boundaries: unorganized territory.

4.

not thinking or acting methodically.

5.

not belonging to or represented by a labor union: unorganized workers.

 

 

 

 

reg·u·late

[reg-yuh-leyt] Show IPA

 

verb (used with object), reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing.

1.

to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.

2.

to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.

3.

to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.

4.

to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.

 

Now, we have two separate words with two separate meanings. It seems to me that they really have no relation. Just because it's unorganized, doesn't mean that it's not regulated. And just because it's regulated, doesn't mean it's organized. It actually is regulated by the Act, but remains unorganized until called into service.

 

I'm I on to something or am I just pissing in the wind? I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

I don't know if I missed something, or maybe I'm just over thinking things, but here it goes. Whenever an anti brings up that the 2A only applies to "A well regulated militia" how come I never hear anybody mention the Militia Act of 1903? There is a provision in this bill that mentions the Unorganized Militia. The Unorganized Militia is basically any able bodied man between the ages of 17 and 45 that can be called into service by the President with at least 24 hours notice. Wouldn't that make everyone who signed up for the draft a Militia member? Now, they may come back and say "Unorganized is unregulated," but that's Not the case. If I'm reading this correctly, the Act regulates service period, pay, and provision for said militia. Now let's look at the definitions of unorganized, and regulated.

 

 

un·or·gan·ized

[uhn-awr-guh-nahyzd] organized; without organic structure.

2.

not formed into an organized or systematized whole: an unorganized essay.

3.

without definite boundaries: unorganized territory.

4.

not thinking or acting methodically.

5.

not belonging to or represented by a labor union: unorganized workers.

 

 

 

 

reg·u·late

[reg-yuh-leyt] control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.

2.

to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.

3.

to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.

4.

to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.

 

Now, we have two separate words with two separate meanings. It seems to me that they really have no relation. Just because it's unorganized, doesn't mean that it's not regulated. And just because it's regulated, doesn't mean it's organized. It actually is regulated by the Act, but remains unorganized until called into service.

 

I'm I on to something or am I just pissing in the wind? I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

 

I believe regulated in the context of the 2nd amendment means GOOD TO GO (i.e. definition #4 above). If you search online the authors have used that word frequently with that definition.

I don't know if I missed something, or maybe I'm just over thinking things, but here it goes. Whenever an anti brings up that the 2A only applies to "A well regulated militia" how come I never hear anybody mention the Militia Act of 1903?

 

I'm I on to something or am I just pissing in the wind? I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

 

It isn't mentioned because the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with a militia. The 2nd Amendment itself doesn't say anything about a militias right to keep and bear arms. As if it wasn't clear enough, the Supreme Court has even stated that it refers to an individual right to keep and bear arms unrelated to a militia. The 2nd Amendment was ratified well before the Militia Act of 1903, so even the Militia it is referring to is different from this. So those are just a handful or reasons it doesn't get brought up. Bringing it up would do nothing more but confuse these people into thinking that you think the 2nd Amendment really does apply to a militias right to bear arms.

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes

 

you also have to take in consideration what the specific words meant back in the time it was originally written. words have slightly changed meanings over the past 200 years

I know what the 2A says, and I'm pretty sure that I read it the same way as everyone else on this board does. I know the SCOTUS ruling. All I'm really tryin to say is, doesn't this act add fuel to our fire? It's just another piece of legislation that helps our argument.

It only helps if it is relevant. It is not.

10 USC 311 establishes the unorganized militia. To use it as an argument to keep and bear arms is incorrect and counterproductive. That would mean you can only keep and bear arms from ages 17 to 45.

 

There are a couple of original versions of the 2A when it comes to the placement of the commas but all of them make it clear the right to keep and bear arms is separate from the militia.

 

The fact is the organizing, disciplining, arming, and training the militia is covered in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The 2A is there to arm the people not the militia. SCOTUS has already ruled this is so.