You can also refer to "organizing" or "reforming" the militia, or anything else, by modifying the law under which it is organized. But that fact doesn't even suggest that "organize" or "reform" refer to the act of issuing laws. And it is clear that being "regulated" [Washington does not refer to "regulating" at all, only to the state of being regulated] also doesn't refer to that act, as Washington uses it. It refers to the opposite of being "irregular".
The argument "I don't like George Washington's ideas about militia reform -> 'regulated' means governed by a body of formal laws" isn't something I would be proud to advance.
If what you're trying to argue here is that the Second Amendment does not _obligate_ states to pass militia laws, I would have to agree, although that doesn't seem to me to be a point of controversy. Otherwise, this is beginning to feel like Calvinball.
It is clear from your own sources that the Framers would have considered state legislation to be an appropriate vehicle to attain the goal of a "well-regulated militia". The original question here is whether the Constitution's usage of "regulate" or "regulated" differs in any meaningful way from the modern understanding of those words, and you have convincingly demonstrated that it does not.
> It is clear from your own sources that the Framers would have considered state legislation to be an appropriate vehicle to attain the goal of a "well-regulated militia".
Of course? But what conclusion are you trying to draw from that statement?
The second amendment states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. George Washington proposes a "well regulated militia law" which obligates everyone who can bear arms to serve when called upon. In what way does that interfere with the right to bear arms?
> The original question here is whether the Constitution's usage of "regulate" or "regulated" differs in any meaningful way from the modern understanding of those words, and you have convincingly demonstrated that it does not.
But here, you're not actually reading my comment(s). We can see that the Constitution's usage of "regulated" is considered synonymous with "organized" and opposite to "irregular" and "disjointed". No such usage would make sense given the modern understanding of the words. But that is how the words were used at the time.
> We can see that the Constitution's usage of "regulated" is considered synonymous with "organized" and opposite to "irregular" and "disjointed". No such usage would make sense given the modern understanding of the words. But that is how the words were used at the time.
I don't understand this at all.
Modern usage of "regulated" can mean either "organized" or "under law". Indeed, in many cases it is just a difference of degree. Perhaps the more common usage is "regular" (as in "regular season"), but it's not some massive difference in meaning where they mean the opposite.
Here, I'll read off hits for "regulated" in COCA (Corpus of Colloquial American [English], https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/ ). There are more than 7000; I'll just take them top down until I lose energy.
> German business owners are more than eager to escape their high-wage heavily regulated union environment
> It is also regulated and controlled by a supranational regulatory body (the WTO)
> and Finland where cell phones, cable TV, other services and products are better regulated and at far lower costs
> "yet they still aren't regulated as hazardous waste. If we really want 'clean coal', we need
> Making the mark-up as opaque as possible. When you are forced or regulated into revealing the mark-up
> fees that get taxed in NY and (hello?) regulated under NY and US laws.
> an aspect of human behavior that is regulated by society through the operation of justice
> aspects of human behavior that are totally regulated by society
> but one of the largest sources, at cook, will be regulated by a [traffic] light
> Greenstein said the exchanges as envisioned in the federal law are too regulated, likely raising costs and limiting choice.
> The fact is, "fair markets" (free markets are not fair, and fair markets are not free) must be carefully and dutifully regulated. And over most of the US's past, it had extensive and good regulation.
> You look at the financial industry as the least regulated. I disagree. The problem is that money is the most regulated of all things. We have legal tender laws and taxation
> what we call "free markets" are actually highly protectionist, regimented, regulated, and designed to undermine competition
> Natural gas supplies were regulated almost out of existence until the government
> But, owning personal arms IS being regulated and pretty much has been from the inception of the Second Amendment
> contraception was also illegal in Ireland until 1980 (!) and then were strongly regulated (yes, your doctor had to prescribe you a condom)
...
> Marijuana should be regulated and taxed by the states
> City Council outlawed corporate signage on downtown buildings. We REGULATED, in other words
OK, I'm losing energy. One page of results has 101 entries. I'll code the first page:
Referring to government (or supragovernmental [the WTO] or divine) law: 80
Referring to mechanical control: 11 ("needs a regulated voltage to run")
Referring to some other type of control: 4 ("Sex [is] an aspect of human behavior that is regulated by society")
Referring to a formal rule that is not imposed by any body with enforcement authority [e.g. an agreement on date nights between a husband and wife]: 2
Typo: 1 ("what legislation is necessary to regulated GMOS")
Unclear: 2
That last category, "unclear", does contain an example that might be construed as meaning "orderly":
> I do not subscribe to the notion that we must regulate our population because there are too many people on Earth. Let Nature take its course and allow the population to get regulated through the market forces in a free association of human beings in society.
The source blog is gone, so I'm not able to look into it in more detail than that. This might be an example of using "regulated" to mean "orderly", but that looks extremely unlikely; it's more likely that it refers to the general existence of rules, in this case a code of conduct. (Which would place it in the "other type of control" category.)
It is in fact fair to say that the usage of "regulated" seen in the second amendment has entirely disappeared from modern usage, and that's why people don't understand it and are willing to deny that using the word that way was even a possibility. It is not a possibility now, but it was then.
As I said: "Perhaps the more common usage is "regular" (as in "regular season"), but it's not some massive difference in meaning where they mean the opposite."
Nevertheless, from the same page you referenced here are some where it means "organized":
> future studies may show that the P2X 7 R could be regulated by a range of ligands
> A possible mechanism for this is that it is regulated epigenetically
> while medical staff monitored his condition and regulated his anti - rejection drug
> Let Nature take its course and allow the population to get regulated through the market forces in a free association of human beings in society.
> This is why the regulated evenings - at least this way I know he will be getting one evening
> the practice of Orthodox Judaism, whose followers maintain a life strictly regulated by their interpretation of holy scripture
> a person's conduct is regulated for the most part by socially approved dispositions that are physically realized in the brain
> But if a man's efficiency is not guided and regulated by a moral sense, then the more efficient he is the worse he is
The problem here is that you have not proven in any way that the Second Amendment's use of "well-regulated" does not refer to "government law" or "some other type of control". If you're suggesting that they expected militias to be self-organizing, you need to present at least one instance of a self-organized militia being referred to as "regulated". The evidence you've presented so far makes it clear that contemporary thought understood militias to be organized by law.
If you could find a single example of a militia being "regulated" by anything other than a legal mandate, I have to assume you'd have presented it by now. 1 gazillion points to Calvin; game over.
> The problem here is that you have not proven in any way that the Second Amendment's use of "well-regulated" does not refer to "government law" or "some other type of control".
You're really set on ignoring the George Clinton speech, huh?
The second amendment begins like this:
> A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...
This usage is obsolete; translated into modern English, the same clause would read:
> A well-functioning militia being necessary to the security of a free state...
And it is obvious that this does not refer to the existence of laws, because that's just not part of the meaning of the word. What do you think needs to be proven? Why?
> I am unacquainted with the Extent of Your Works and consequently of the Number of Men necessary to man them. If your present Numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all Means advise Your making up the Deficiency out of the best regulated and equipped Militia. [4]
> [4] The draft reads: “out of the best regulated Militia that could be got.”
This is pretty explicit: George Washington anticipates that Philip Schuyler may not have enough troops under his command to achieve his objectives. He recommends mustering troops from the local militia. But he is more detailed than that: he envisions ranking the local militia along a scale of how "regulated" they are, and choosing the men who are best regulated. All of these men are subject to the same laws, but they differ in their degree of regulation.
The argument "I don't like George Washington's ideas about militia reform -> 'regulated' means governed by a body of formal laws" isn't something I would be proud to advance.