Interpretation Of Regulations Document: Fill & Download for Free

Ben Worthen's answer to What do the terms ‘arms’, ‘well regulated’, and ‘militia’ mean in the Second Amendment?A note: most people do not realize that in the lexicon of the day (as referenced by thousands of easily verifiable citations in legal and non legal writings contemporary to the Constitution), “well regulated militia” meant something much different than we have been led to believe in today’s world.It actually means something close to the idea of making sure the militia had the necessary ability to operate and could operate smoothly and without difficulty, so as to be the standing protection against any tyrannical potential invaders/userpers, etc.Because it meant that they *(the militias) were to be enhanced, supported properly and given the ability to perform their mandate, rather than that they ought to be audited, crippled, taxed, and otherwise regulated (as we know the word to be today), it brings to bear the intent of the wording.The term “Well-regulated” was a compound term. It neither presupposed that there would be individual oversight by any body, nor that the militia would be neutered from performing the task of defense of freedom from all invaders, foreign or at home. On might argue such “regulatory” potential lay with the congress at that point- but it was only potential, not mandate. But an argument could be made either way on that point.An applicable quote I think by Martin Luther King Jr.: “I judge people by their own principles, not by my own” (sic)The same is true when authenticating and verifying meaning for a written historical document: we should judge by the surrounding facts, not our opinions on what the facts should be - and certainly with respect to the time a document was written and similar documents of that age. Not by our own standards.Simply understanding that we do not govern a document based on our intentions and our interpretations of a word or what it has evolved to mean, but rather the intentions and the interpretations of the word as it stood on the day of the writing, means that the arguments contemporaneous to today regarding “well regulated militia” are without merit, wholly.

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”I generally avoid using the Second Amendment while arguing guns. Look through my answers on the subject, you’ll only see it where it is directly related to the question. This is by choice, as I feel that the right to bear arms speaks for itself.The amendment is in three parts. “A well regulated militia,” is a dependent clause. One can recognize a dependent clause because they don’t work as a sentence. Dependent clauses only work to expand or explain on t he subject of the independent clause.Therefore any and all arguments that the amendment applies only to a militia are against the rules of English. (Yes, it does have them,)Well Regulated has had several meanings for some time. Some interpret it to mean “Well covered by laws.” but remember that as a dependent clause it is subservient to the independent clause which says the right “Shall not be infringed.” Clearly, this isn’t what that was meant to mean.Well regulated could also mean “Set well to an external standard.” But that standard isn’t pointed to. These amendments were rigorously debated over and something as blatantly missing as what standard it was supposed to be set to is… unlikely? Absurd? A blow to the very constitution? Impossible? Yes, that’s the right word. That room was filled with very intelligent men, they wouldn’t make a mistake like that.Some people will say that “Well Regulated” meant “Well equipped and supplied.” I’m afraid this one’s a meme that isn’t backed up by history.So what does it mean? When something is well regulated, it is functioning properly. It’s doing what it should be. A machine that is well regulated has no parts that knock or grind or arrive late or stick. It works as intended.A well regulated Militia is one that knows when to assemble, how to fight, when to fight and what to fight with, and who to fight.So what is a militia? The dictionary defines it as a military force raised from the civilian population in an emergency. It sometimes fights against a regular army, but it can also be defined as “All able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.”The writers of the amendment said they wanted all the men of the society to be armed outside of this document, and again this is a subservient phrase, the independent clause says it’s the right of the “People” therefore we can determine it’s the last definition.Next we have “Being necessary to the security of a free state”I don’t think I need to explain “Being necessary.” If you’re confused by this turn of phrase leave a comment.“To the security of a free state”A free state can be defined in two ways. A free State is a country that is free. And free countries have often been invaded through the centuries. A militia will defend its home tooth and nail and this could be a valid interpretation.A free state could also be a state of being free. When you give people freedom some will inevitably use their freedom for evil. This is the price of freedom, and it is something a people who would be free must be ready to deal with.Either interpretation works with the amendment. If you live free you will inevitably have to defend yourself from evil.“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” This is the independent clause. The only part of the amendment that makes sense on its own. It is the central idea of the amendment and the previous two clauses must fit into it.“The right of the people.” All of the amendments of the Bill of Rights refer to the people, both individually and collectively. None refer only to a collective; There was no collectivist sentiment among the founders. This right belongs to all individuals and can only be removed by due process. (as per the fifth amendment.) As this is an individual right it also extends to groups they may form (As per the first amendment.)“To keep and bear arms.” To keep means to own and have access to something. To bear something means to be able to carry and use something.Arms comes from the Latin ‘Arma’, the same root as army. refers to weapons, swords and spears, slings and bows, guns and ammo and artillery and all the dreadful weapons of war. It will also cover any weapon useful for personal defense, pepper spray and mace and kubotans and clubs and knives.“Shall not be infringed.” This is a simple line. You can’t take it away without due process, and you can’t take it away from the people at large.In modern English the amendment might have looked like thisA well functioning armed society is necessary to a free country, therefore the right of people to own and carry weapons will not be violated.Maybe not perfect, but it is close.And because I’m sure somebody’ll bring it up, “But Jimmy! None of the amendments are absolute! You can’t shout fire in a crowded theater an-”Let me cut you off right there. All of the legitimate limitations on the bill of rights are either limitation of use, or a practical problem that you just can’t work around. You can’t use your freedom of speech to intentionally cause measurable harm. You can’t complain about soldiers staying in your house after inviting them to do so, your right to privacy doesn’t extend to acts in public.A restriction on when you can brandish or discharge a weapon is totally okay. A restriction that says you can’t own the chrome model is not.Good lord that was a lot of writing for a single sentence.

I would like to give you an honest answer, but the English is this document is so peculiar that I cannot be sure of understanding what the writer means.You might consider also, amending your question to “What do you think of this particular person’s interpretation of street regulations in Australia” but please do take into account that there is no such phrase as “street regulations” in use in Australia.