The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - A thought on the common topic of general militia usage

Don Randall · December 28, 2009, 01:59 AM

The army and navy of the national government was authorized by the constitution in article 1, section 8.

The militias of the states were already addressed in that same place.

There is no possible need or reason to revisit any government controlled militia a second time in the constitution, that was already a done deal.

The words "well regulated" do not appear in the mention of the militias under the control of government authorized in article 1, section 8.

The Founding Fathers of our nation and the Framers of our constitution were Englishmen before they became the first Americans.

Those men were well educated, literate men and had an understanding of their language and words and phrases common to their language as appropriate to men of that place and time.

The framers chose the term "well regulated militia" because, to them, that term applied specifically to armed men, not under the control of government.

If you care to read what today seems like an ancient document written in the style of the day, you will find what I have just said to be true. The excerpt I post below appears after the author spends some time making reference to the professional standing army loyal to the King as well as troops under the control of lesser royals or other authorized officials. At no time does the term "well regulated militia" appear in any of those discussions.

Only after addressing those others does the author (Parliamentarian Andrew Fletcher) use the term "well regulated militia" when he writes:

http://www.constitution.org/fletchr/fletchr.htm

Let us now consider whether we may not be able to defend ourselves by well- regulated militias against any foreign force, though never so formidable: that these nations may be free from the fears of invasion from abroad, as well as from the danger of slavery at home.

December 28, 2009, 01:59 AM	#39
Don Randall Member Join Date: January 30, 2000 Posts: 43	The army and navy of the national government was authorized by the constitution in article 1, section 8. The militias of the states were already addressed in that same place. There is no possible need or reason to revisit any government controlled militia a second time in the constitution, that was already a done deal. The words "well regulated" do not appear in the mention of the militias under the control of government authorized in article 1, section 8. The Founding Fathers of our nation and the Framers of our constitution were Englishmen before they became the first Americans. Those men were well educated, literate men and had an understanding of their language and words and phrases common to their language as appropriate to men of that place and time. The framers chose the term "well regulated militia" because, to them, that term applied specifically to armed men, not under the control of government. If you care to read what today seems like an ancient document written in the style of the day, you will find what I have just said to be true. The excerpt I post below appears after the author spends some time making reference to the professional standing army loyal to the King as well as troops under the control of lesser royals or other authorized officials. At no time does the term "well regulated militia" appear in any of those discussions. Only after addressing those others does the author (Parliamentarian Andrew Fletcher) use the term "well regulated militia" when he writes: http://www.constitution.org/fletchr/fletchr.htm Let us now consider whether we may not be able to defend ourselves by well- regulated militias against any foreign force, though never so formidable: that these nations may be free from the fears of invasion from abroad, as well as from the danger of slavery at home.