The Founders on the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Exactly.

With the statement against a standing Army, and We being the Militia, there could not be a Federal Controlling of Arms as this will by proxy, be a standing army.

Plus the whole thing of stating that the Militia will be "Well Regulated" and not that a "Well Regulated of Bearing of Arms".

Which is one reason why this line nonsense is silly at best. I've seen the same position from the anti-civil rights crowd for a long time: that the founding fathers believed in regulating firearms. Now, in order to have this disingenuous position, they have to ignore what the FF actually wrote and rely on quibbling over dictionary definitions and the verbiage of the second amendment (completely ignoring this thing we have in the English language known as "the subordinate clause"-- basic elementary grammar eludes them apparently).

The proof that they are wrong, lies in the salient fact that the founders made not a single law nor regulation that controlled firearms for the private citizen. Even the Militia Act of 1792 describes the MINIMUM of arms a militia member must take with him (and supplied by himself--he has to buy it himself on the open market--that in and of itself shows they did not want to regulate private sale of firearms). The proof of what they believed is in what they actually DID.

The first congress passed 22 acts of major legislation from it's inception until 1792, regulating everything from the postal service to whiskey to coins to patents.
en.wikipedia.org... /List_of_United_States_federal_legislation,_1789%E2%80%931901#2nd_United_States_Congress

They covered in regulation everything that was a federal responsibility as delineated by the constitution. The first set of Navy Regulations was published in 1775 and amended after the Constitution was ratified.

They thought whiskey was important enough to regulate but they did not make a single law regulating firearms in any way, shape, or form. That should show you what they actually believed in, not 8th grade level dictionary games.

Why? It's obvious. The Bill of Rights was called the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of Regulations and Restrictions. They put the second in there and many would not sign the document without it in there for the same reason the other rights are in there--that they were intended to defend the rights of the individual citizen. Not the state, not the government, not the militia, but every citizen. Logically, if that was not the case, than the freedom of religion or assembly or speech or search and seizure, are not individual rights as well. The FF were not stupid, they included the second in the bill of rights, in importance only under the first, because they believed that an individual's right to keep and bear arms was just as important as his right to speak freely. Those are the FACTS of the matter.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: Indigo5

the word regulated back then meant
well disciplined and well equipped.

I prefer evidence to claims on a forum

The most relevant definition would be near the time the 2ND amendment was written. 1791.

Here is a definition from 1792 (With direct links to the dictionary)

To Regulate [Regula Latin]
1. To adjust by rule or method
2. To direct

Link to Dictionary 1791

You make it too easy... The so called regulars were trained to deliver a regular rate of fire.
THEY WERE WELL REGULATED TROOPS ABLE AND READY TO KILL THE ENEMY!
Just as a regulated clock works, so did the military as they were well regulated in their task.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: Indigo5

the word regulated back then meant
well disciplined and well equipped.

I prefer evidence to claims on a forum

The most relevant definition would be near the time the 2ND amendment was written. 1791.

Here is a definition from 1792 (With direct links to the dictionary)

To Regulate [Regula Latin]
1. To adjust by rule or method
2. To direct

Link to Dictionary 1791

I like evidence too. Please point out a single firearms regulation or law written by the founding fathers that would confirm your premise that they believed firearms should be regulated.

Since we are talking about the Constitution, we can limit the search to those who signed this document.

I feel like we are beating a dead horse...or dare I say dead jackass?

The main problem as I can see is that the outhouse based education system has done its job well!

Notice the absence of logic presented by some folks on the forum?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Indigo5


That would still place the authority to regulate in the hands of the states. Don't see where the Feds ever had any authority over arms anyway.

That is one of the great ironies of the NRA et al. They claim that the Federal Government is without authority, that states rights trumps the Federal Government, but when the states choose to regulate gun ownership in any manner, like in Illinois...they appeal to the Federal Governments authority to intercede to over-rule the states will...the 2nd Amendment!


(The NRA made no such claims!)
(They have said that the central government has diminished states rights over the years through over stepping authority.)

To answer your question another way...If the Founders did not want the federal government to be involved, they would not have included it in the Federal Constitution and the authority would have defaulted to the states.

They chose to both enshrine the right and to regulate it at the federal level. You can bemoan that reality, but if they had not, several states would have banned guns altogether by now as the federal government has supported the 2nd Amendment in court in States vs. Fed cases...far, far, far more than they have regulated it to any degree.

originally posted by: Indigo5

Right...Militia is PEOPLE+ARMS...PEOPLE WHO "BEAR ARMS" ..If inanimate objects were capable of following laws and being tried in court, perhaps they would have spoken to the guns.

Noooooo.
Militia is not "People + Arms".
Militia is people, organized. What they carry is not defined.
Just as the Military of today, and yesterday, the Military member can use a wide range of tools.
Hammers, drills, trucks, boats.....

originally posted by: Indigo5
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.

The CLEAR PURPOSE of the amendment is clearly articulated "A well REGULATED militia"...

Yes, you have that correct.

originally posted by: Indigo5
WHY? necessary to the security of a free State

Yes

originally posted by: Indigo5
HOW? the people to keep and bear Arms

Aren't you forgetting something at the end there??????

shall not be infringed.

Why did you leave this out?

originally posted by: Indigo5
Not just "the People"...but specifically a "Militia"...and not just a "Militia", but a "regulated" militia...and not just "regulated", but "Well regulated"...

Yes, a "Well Regulated" Militia. TO be trained, supplied and so on.

originally posted by: Indigo5
Hell..they could have gotten away with...

"Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

They could have, but the Militia part is there to allow the People to form when the need arises to take back the Govt.

originally posted by: Indigo5
If they had no intent of regulating the right to bear arms.

If they did, they would have made laws regarding this.
But....they didn't.

originally posted by: Indigo5
They did not want the people to be disarmed...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

But they did want that right regulated.

No, no no. They wanted the Militia to be well regulated. Trained, supplied, outfitted.

With the 2nd put in place to hold a Govt in check, why on earth would they then put in a provision for that same Govt to control/restrict either the Militia or the people.


SO...the meaning of regulated is in fact NOT restricting of rights. It is to make sure that the Militias were trained and ready should the Govt need to be removed.

To regulate or to control, that is the question?

If they wanted to control the people, they could have used the word control or restrict or limited use of fire arms.

What is so hard to understand about that?

originally posted by: macman
With the 2nd put in place to hold a Govt in check, why on earth would they then put in a provision for that same Govt to control/restrict either the Militia or the or the people.

That is an outstanding perspective and frankly I think cuts to the very essence of what the Founders envisioned.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: macman
With the 2nd put in place to hold a Govt in check, why on earth would they then put in a provision for that same Govt to control/restrict either the Militia or the or the people.

That is an outstanding perspective and frankly I think cuts to the very essence of what the Founders envisioned.

The US govt has been hijacked by evil men who own and control the financial and corporate interests - these are the real enemy - but with control of the govt, then some hope of bringing them to justice is possible.

a reply to: Amagnon

Yes. And those same interests want gun control because they see it a threat just as they see the freedom of speech a threat.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
It is just like "I am pro 2nd Amendment, but.....we need common sense restrictions".

What the hell does that mean?

If you are for the Right to Bear Arms....then you are for that right. Not for it, but only these guns here....or this ammo over here....or this attachment.....


I am all for not hitting people with hammers....but bats are okay....

The very essence of the framers intention rests heavily on natural law.
Natural law is the law of the jungle, where an animal, (dog)
has the natural right to defend itself and to defend its offspring.

This natural law was endowed by the Creator in all living things.

The inborn right to self defense is a fundamental projection of the preservation of the species natural law.

Since it is inborn and cannot be granted or bequeathed by a government,
the framers merely enumerated this right as the second amendment of the Constitution.

The right is inalienable meaning it is impossible to separate this right from its possessor as long as the owner is still breathing.

Since the framers decided to create a system of government where we the people govern ourselves, it stood to reason that we the people also must rise up to the requirement that we defend ourselves.

A self governing people must also be self defensive.

The right has been infringed upon most severely and most egregiously in the past sixty years.

The core issue is the right to keep (possess, have, store, maintain) and bear (use, employ, carry, hold, transport)

There are too many to mention or list laws that infringe upon this core issue.

Magazine capacity
type of bullet
type of action
felons to not have firearms
three day waiting period
limits to number of firearms purchased
background checks
licenses to conceal carry
registrations of weapons
transport in trunk
store arms and ammo separately
gun locks
and on and on............

The right is being infringed upon from every angle and every side, and one needs to ask oneself WHY.

In WWI and WWII our biggest allies were Australia, Canada and Britain.

In the last thirty years we have seen gun confiscation is Britain, Canada and Australia.

The remaining bastion of freedom is the USA.

Just look in the last 120 years what has happened to countries that surrendered their firearms.

originally posted by: macman
No, no no. They wanted the Militia to be well regulated. Trained, supplied, outfitted.

You, and others, can keep wishing that definition to be true, but as I have shown complete with links to multiple dictionaries of the time, that was not the meaning of the word.

Perhaps you can provide a definition of the time specifying that "regulate" meant Supplied? Outfitted? Trained?

vs.

The most relevant definition would be near the time the 2ND amendment was written. 1791.

Here is a definition from 1792 (With direct links to the dictionary)

To Regulate [Regula Latin]
1. To adjust by rule or method
2. To direct

Link to Dictionary 1791

a reply to: macman

I'm all for free speech except for porn and stuff I don't like...otherwise I'm all for free speech.




Actually...I like porn--a lot.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: macman
No, no no. They wanted the Militia to be well regulated. Trained, supplied, outfitted.

You, and others, can keep wishing that definition to be true, but as I have shown complete with links to multiple dictionaries of the time, that was not the meaning of the word.

Perhaps you can provide a definition of the time specifying that "regulate" meant Supplied? Outfitted? Trained?

vs.

The most relevant definition would be near the time the 2ND amendment was written. 1791.

Here is a definition from 1792 (With direct links to the dictionary)

To Regulate [Regula Latin]
1. To adjust by rule or method
2. To direct

Link to Dictionary 1791

Yeah, yeah. You only got one link to a partial pocket dictionary.

So, are you going to provide evidence of your claim and show us all the gun regulations the FF wrote or are you just going to make claims without evidence?

originally posted by: spirited75
The very essence of the framers intention rests heavily on natural law.
Natural law is the law of the jungle, where an animal, (dog)
has the natural right to defend itself and to defend its offspring.

Natural law is NOT law of the jungle - the law of the jungle is that might is right. Natural law is that everyone has the right to peaceable existence, without being plundered and infringed by those who use force.

Natural law also demands that everyone has the right to defend themselves from plunderers - but not to be one themselves.

Whosoever infringes the property (body, liberty, speech, PRIVACY, labor and products of labor) of a sentient being without their consent (which may exist only in the absence of violence, deceit or threat of violence) commits an unlawful act.

That is the Natural Law - which in my opinion is the ONLY law.

Modern govts are ALL unlawful - because they extort taxes without consent with the threat of violence - and they UNLAWFULLY infringe privacy, liberty, body, speech and almost every aspect of property which a living being is lawfully endowed.

a reply to: Indigo5

everyone that is involved in this thread actively discussing with you has seen your little dictionary reference.

But keep posting it as your mantra if it continues to make you feel good.

Since we are a free self governing people AND the requirement to
be able and willing to defend ourselves is a condition of that freedom
and self governance, I will tell any American that does not possess a
weapon and know how to shoot it is a no damn good citizen.

They live and breathe under the umbrella of freedoms that the
armed of this society provide and question and erode and hamper our ability to provide it.

a reply to: Amagnon

you missed my point completely.

it is natural for a dog to defend itself,
that natural right is present in humans as well.

the right of self defense.

Do not attempt to make my point something that it was not.

a reply to: Amagnon

Star for a well reasons distinction. Under natural law, every individual has the right to self defense and, as such, has a right to the tools of self defense.

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: Amagnon

you missed my point completely.

it is natural for a dog to defend itself,
that natural right is present in humans as well.

the right of self defense.

Do not attempt to make my point something that it was not.

The terms "Law of the Jungle' and 'Natural Law' have very different meanings - I was not intending to attack your assertion that living beings are entitled to defend their property - but rather the premise upon which that defense is lawfully enacted.

a reply to: spirited75



I get your point and I agree. Just that "law of the jungle" has different connotations. I humbly suggest that your point, although correct and sincerely put, was slightly lost in the verbage.