what does "well-regulated" mean?

We used to have an old wall-hanging clock in our kitchen that we always called a grandmother clock with "Regulated" printed across the clock dial. Nothing quite so bold as you see below, but I'm pretty sure that there is no judicial or Federal involvement in it's timekeeping.

reg·u·late Verb /?regy??l?t/
Synonyms:
verb: adjust, control, arrange, settle, order, regularize, tune, set
regulated past tense; regulated past participle; regulates 3rd person singular present; regulating present participle
1. Control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly
a hormone that regulates metabolism and organ function
2. Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations
the organization that regulates fishing in the region
3. Set (a clock or other apparatus) according to an external standard

Put the highlighted words together and I come up with a trained, disciplined group of civilian men that could win a battle in defending this country or remove a corrupt government.

Remind you that a corrupt government can be a small town government....not just federal.

gunsmoker said:

If not, how can we get to that point that the Framers envisioned?

Click to expand...

Appleseed comes to mind.

If not "regulated" in the sense of going through Baron von Steuben's drills, maybe today's version would be trained, knowledgeable, and proficient about the laws and usage regarding your firearm. I wouldn't mind the same sort of culture around driving for that matter. It'd be great if more people took the time to truly learn in more depth whatever they choose to involve themselves with. Carl Sagan's quote about technology comes to mind. (*)

The 2A resonates more with me in today's time when I consider what is supposedly one of its historical sources. The complaint in the English Declaration of Rights that

[T]he late King James the Second . . . did endeavor to subvert and exteripate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;
. . .
6. By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;

Click to expand...

In other words, it's a nice, very early version of the argument that laws against guns only disarm the law-abiding and does nothing against criminals.

The original draft said, "It is necessary for the public safety that the subjects which are protestants should provide and keep arms for their common defence: and that the arms which have been seized and taken from them be restored." That was changed to put in wording for "Suitable for their conditions and as allowed by law," showing that those in power are always nervous about not having some kind of licensing going on.

But to the extent that this is a historical source for the American 2A, I think it shows that the Founders weren't only about "militia" and "armies" and what-not in their thinking. Considering themselves proper English subjects, they should have thought that the right to bear arms was based also on "public safety" and protection from those "employed contrary to law." They would firmly believe that confiscating guns leaves a law-abiding citizen helpless. Militias were just uppermost in their mind after their recent reveolutionary experience.

(*) We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.

gunsmoker said:

So do all of us civilian gun owners, target shooters, plinkers, and hunters actually make up a "WELL REGULATED" militia?
I know that the unorganized militia is made up of all able-bodies citizens of suitable age, but does that satisfy the "well regulated" part?
Even if "well regulated" is not a mandate that must be met before someone can exercise their gun rights, isn't it something the Framers considered ideal? Didn't they want a Well-Regulated Militia?

So are we well-regulated now?
If not, how can we get to that point that the Framers envisioned?

Click to expand...

In the early days of the revolution against England the militia was unorganized. The framers envisioned the militia as being better trained and well organized. However the states took too much control then the Federal Government took even more control. The regulated militia failed to see what was happening and just slowly faded away into what is now known as the National Guard and the XXXXXX (state) Reserves. State Governments feared the militias and were all too eager to see them fall totally under state control. The phrase a well regulated was twisted into meaning the state could regulate everything about the militia. Now comes the Federal Government with loads of tax monies collected and basically buys out the states. So now we have what once was a militia turned into so many federal regulations that there is a standing army built to do the will of the Federal Government.

I see no way to get back to the point the framers intent of a well regulated militia. If you even tried the Government of not only the state but the federal as well would lable you a nut case and attack in force before you could get out of hand. Waco, Texas comes to mind. Once in a while you will hear about some little group getting busted by the feds for weapons or being too radical. This usually happens when they start really getting their message out and people start to listen. Then the only side of the story you get to hear is the one the feds put out to the media.