From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Militia's and the right to keep and bear arms
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:24:30 GMT

OK, guys, I've been busy, so I didn't get back to this right away....
I suggest that the best way to settle this is to look at the Federalist
papers (available from Project Gutenberg).

In article <81382@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
(Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

> Produce the evidence, if you believe it exists.  I examined the OED on
> the usage of "regulated" and found that the modern usage predates the
> 2nd amendment.  For example, there is a reference to "well-regulated
> courts" in 1712.  
> 
> The word "regulated" is defined as "Governed by rule, properly controlled
> or directed, adjusted to some standard, etc."  A 1697 reference has "Those
> regulated Societies, which are now conspicuous among us for many good works."
> A 1766 passage on surveying:  "Then may you measure all the whole chains
> by your regulated chain."  A 1790 reference from Adam Smith:  When those
> companies...are obliged to admit any person, properly qualified...they
> are called regulated companies."

If I recall, Hamilton was a proponet of putting the militia under the
Feds control.  Let's have a look at how he views a "well-regulated militia":

--------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERALIST No. 29

Concerning the Militia
From the Daily Advertiser.
Thursday, January 10, 1788

HAMILTON

To the People of the State of New York:
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its
 services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents
 to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching
 over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

[...]
 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
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <why 2 clauses?>
 body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If
 standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over
 the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State
 is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement
 and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal
 government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies
 which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate,
 it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind
 of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be
 obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will
 be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand
 prohibitions upon paper.

[...]
 To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes
 of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through
 military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the
 character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. [...]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

What does Hamilton mean "...the character of a well-regulated militia"?
Could he be refering to a well-trained militia?  Why does he refer to
it in the same sentence that discusses "military exercises"?  Remember,
this is from a guy who wanted it under the Feds control (as you suggest
"well-regulated militia" implies).

I think the interpretation we've been using for "well-regulated" is
correct.  Of course, this is irrelevant, since this clause places
no restriction on the second clause.

> But please
> feel free to offer some evidence that your more obscure definition of the
> word, when applied to troops, had a specialized meaning in the late 18th 
> century.  So far, no evidence of any kind has been advanced for the claim.

You're welcome....  ;-)

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser