Understand what ‘well regulated militia’ meant in 18th century

To The Daily Sun,

For anyone who has a firm grasp of American history (and for that, syntax) the term “well regulated” has nothing to do with law. In this case, “well regulated” means “well trained” or "well disciplined." Militias practiced their art, learning to handle their firearms. That included the act of preparing their weapons to fire, which took 12 steps, to whit:

1. Push the striker (also known as a frissen) forward to uncover the flash pan.

2. Pour a small amount powder into the flash pan.

3. Move the frissen back to cover the pan.

4. Hold the musket with the muzzle facing up.

5. Pour powder into the the barrel from the muzzle.

6. Insert a musket lead into the barrel.

7. Insert a small patch of cloth or paper wadding into the barrel.

8. Remove the ramrod from its storage pipe underneath the barrel of the musket and use it to ram the lead and wadding down to the end of the barrel.

9. Replace the ramrod into its storage pipe.

10. Raise the musket to firing position and seat the butt against the shoulder.

11. Pull back the hammer.

12. Aim and fire.

To perform these steps in a timely and rapid fashion took practice. To do it as a team took even more practice to ensure that each line of militiamen would complete the tasks at the same time, every time. If they could, they were “well regulated.” “Regulars,” as many soldiers were called back then, meant they could maintain a rate of volley fire at a regular interval, something that was very effective on an 18th century battlefield.

“Militia” was all citizens, not just the National Guard or the Continental Army. (To be accurate, it was all men of age, young or old, at least back in the 18th century.) So the phrase “well regulated militia” in the context of the Second Amendment has a different meaning than here in the 21st century. Even the U.S. Supreme Court understood that.

While Mr. Davis may disagree with the 9-0 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Heller vs District of Columbia in regard to the Second Amendment being an individual right and not a collective right, it is the law of the land. It is his right to disagree. However I must disagree with him that it is the “most destructive and consequential of them all.” I can think of many other Supreme Court decisions that were far more divisive and destructive, including some in the modern era.

Dale Channing Eddy

Gilford