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

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: Indigo5

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.

I own guns and certainly know how to shoot them. Even competed in shooting competitions a bit in my youth....and yet I would never condemn fellow citizens who do not own guns as "no damn good citizen(s)".

That seems a very strange breed of irate gun zealotry to me.

And yet another reason why I am finding less and less value in this discussion...

With that, good day folks.

a reply to: Indigo5

You are leaving because you are losing the argument.
Do not let the door hit you...

a reply to: Indigo5

Lol. Again with the same trite and overused Daily Kos and Brady Campaign meme--I own guns but...

It was but a simple question and one easily answered but ignored by you: if the FF were for gun regulation, where are the regulations they wrote?

You leave because you know you have no evidence to back your claim and your talk about evidence and claims in forums is thus hypocritical.

All it takes for me to see the necessity of private gun ownership is what has happened in countries where it is prohibited. Take a close look at the present activities of ISIS----don't you think they are control because they KNOW they have the guns and the ones they are conquering don't? What a difference it would make if they had to worry that every other home had a few weapons to defend it?
Have a nice long look at our southern border these days----since the US government, in its infinite wisdom, decided to sell guns to the Mexican drug cartels while trying to restrict the rights of US citizens to own similar weapons. Add to the sale of guns to the bad guys the fact that the current administration makes no attempt to enforce the immigration laws currently on the books, passed in a legal fashion by Congress. What is to stop ISIS from coming across that border? Only the good people---US citizens---who are armed and know how to use those arms!

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Let me help you with your reading comprehension. You completely and utterly missed the point. People who Deify the Founding Fathers are ridiculous on the face of it. If you are going to do that, then you have take everything they said and wrote with the same level of reverence. Including some of the most reprehensible human behaviour visited by one man on another.

The point being that the Founding Fathers were just "human" and prone to error as anyone else, so quit mumbling metaphorically in their presence like they were anything more than rich white dudes out to preserver THEIR way of life. Ownership of firearms can and should be defended by modern minds and reasons.

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Let me help you with your reading comprehension. You completely and utterly missed the point. People who Deify the Founding Fathers are ridiculous on the face of it. If you are going to do that, then you have take everything they said and wrote with the same level of reverence. Including some of the most reprehensible human behaviour visited by one man on another.

The point being that the Founding Fathers were just "human" and prone to error as anyone else, so quit mumbling metaphorically in their presence like they were anything more than rich white dudes out to preserver THEIR way of life. Ownership of firearms can and should be defended by modern minds and reasons.

Let me help you with your comprehension.
No one is deifying the founding fathers.

Why did you capitalize the term used for founding fathers?

Just because they recently fought a war for independence
and risked their fortunes, families and lives to repel the
tyranny is reason to take their perspective on firearm ownership in high regard.

The majority of them realized that slavery was wrong---they facilitated The
Great Compromise in order to eventually remove slavery from the United States.

Google and read several articles on the Great Compromise.
Google and read the entire "Coopers Union " speech by
Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President.

Signers of the Constitution.
Biographical Sketches.

The 39 signers as a whole were a distinguished body of men who represented an excellent cross section of 18th-century American leadership. Almost all of them were well-educated men of means who were dominant in their communities and States, and many were also prominent in national affairs. Virtually every one had taken part in the Revolution; at least 23 had served in the Continental forces, most of them in positions of command.

Eleven owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large farms: Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, the two Pinckneys, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington. Madison also owned slaves.

originally posted by: Indigo5
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.

If the Framers wanted to 'regulate' something they would have said so:

This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."

This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army. Let someone who under stands Constitutional Law explain this to you

originally posted by: NavyDoc
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.

Agreed...Time is money and money is power; that is in direct competition with the power of the pen as well as the GUN!

www.youtube.com...

To the route of the problem...

So a bunch of politicians from 200+ years ago are the only legitimate source of what is right and what is best for the country? No new thinking is allowed regardless of the social, technical, geographic and demographic changes that have occurred over the centuries if it contradicts what these very few white, wealthy males had to say?

Is that really the best way to govern one of the most advanced nations on the planet?

originally posted by: neo96

The Founders and Framers did not expect the private citizenry to be subordinate to the military in regards the ability to own arms but to have equal parity as they were and always should be considered the militia. George Mason, co-author of the 2nd Amendment:

This was the TRUE intention of the second amendment.

Quite a shame that some people don't get that, and never will.

The second amendment was NEVER about hunting, and 'sporting'.

It was the last check to balance the power of the state.

That is why it was written.

First, as a disclaimer, I do not advocate taking people's guns away. I'm not making a comment on the present day state of gun regulations, I'm simply trying to correct the historical inaccuracies in this post as you are dead wrong. The founders did not want the citizens to have parity with the military, they wanted the citizens to BE the military. This is an entirely different kettle of fish, and a very important distinction.

The founders did not view an armed populace as a check on the power of a standing army. It is a well documented fact that the founders did not want the federal government to have a standing army period. They wanted an armed populace INSTEAD of a standing army.

They wanted the "people", meaning the nation, to be able to defend itself by having an organized militia should they be faced with invasion or attack by a foreign power. A country with no standing army would need an organized militia made up of the people for national defense. The people should not have parity with a standing army, the people would BE the standing army. This is the way they wanted things to be organized, not so the armed populace would be a check on internal government power, but so the armed populace could be an organized militia capable of defending the nation from external attack.

If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army, which Thomas Jefferson said was "an engine of oppression."

When seen in this light, staunch defenders of the "original intent" of the Second Amendment should be advocating the complete and total dismantling of our standing military in favor of a citizen militia. Personally I have always viewed these arguments as a bit schizophrenic. Many people who narrowly or incorrectly interpret the Second Amendment based upon their contention that the founders intended an armed populace to be a bulwark against tyranny in our own government also advocate massive defense budgets and support arming our "tyrannical" government with so many advanced weapons systems that no citizenry could hope to be a check on their power, no matter how many assault rifles they possess in their stand off with BLM agents. You've already lost that fight, sorry to say, unless you intend to show up armed with tanks, F-16s, and ICBMs tipped with nuclear warheads. The very thought that the government spends one moment quaking in their boots thinking about the Bundy Ranch patriots is insane. If I hadn't thought we'd already lost our democracy to the NSA and the Patriot Act, I'd be laughing. Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither, isn't that the quote? We've already given up our freedom and any hope of democracy, but it's not a piddly gun issue. That's just a distraction. The real fight has already been won, and not by the good guys I'm sorry to say.

With that said, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but the facts are the facts.

originally posted by: diggindirt
All it takes for me to see the necessity of private gun ownership is what has happened in countries where it is prohibited. Take a close look at the present activities of ISIS----don't you think they are control because they KNOW they have the guns and the ones they are conquering don't? What a difference it would make if they had to worry that every other home had a few weapons to defend it?
Have a nice long look at our southern border these days----since the US government, in its infinite wisdom, decided to sell guns to the Mexican drug cartels while trying to restrict the rights of US citizens to own similar weapons. Add to the sale of guns to the bad guys the fact that the current administration makes no attempt to enforce the immigration laws currently on the books, passed in a legal fashion by Congress. What is to stop ISIS from coming across that border? Only the good people---US citizens---who are armed and know how to use those arms!

Private citizens can legally own assault weapons (AK-47s) in Iraq. The populace has the right to be armed, so your point is invalid as to that country. In Syria the right to have weapons is not guaranteed, but gunpolicy.org estimates there were 735,000 privately owned weapons in Syria (legal and illegal) as of 2007, and that number has certainly grown since then as there are many governments and groups seeking to arm rebel forces in that country, not to mention the fully armed and equipped military forces of the Asad Regime. Your point is probably invalid in regards to Syria also.

What's to stop ISIS from coming across our southern border? Let's see...maybe the National Guard and various Reserve forces of each border state, all their state and local law enforcement entities, the Border Patrol, and the full might and power of the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard? Unless you feel they're not up to the task?

originally posted by: Leonidas
So a bunch of politicians from 200+ years ago are the only legitimate source of what is right and what is best for the country? No new thinking is allowed regardless of the social, technical, geographic and demographic changes that have occurred over the centuries if it contradicts what these very few white, wealthy males had to say?

Is that really the best way to govern one of the most advanced nations on the planet?

So what aspects of the Second Amendment need to change due to social, technical, geographic or demographic reasons?

How will the nation be better governed by any proposed changes?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Leonidas
So a bunch of politicians from 200+ years ago are the only legitimate source of what is right and what is best for the country? No new thinking is allowed regardless of the social, technical, geographic and demographic changes that have occurred over the centuries if it contradicts what these very few white, wealthy males had to say?

Is that really the best way to govern one of the most advanced nations on the planet?

So what aspects of the Second Amendment need to change due to social, technical, geographic or demographic reasons?

How will the nation be better governed by any proposed changes?

So you are saying that you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion of gun ownership? Nothing to help make sure the rights of citizens to own guns gaining greater acceptance with the skeptics? You are totally confident there is no risk of having those rights seriously curtailed - or worse in the current political climate? You are happy to just leave something this important to a clause in the constitution that could be changed by any administration that has the political will and support to do so?

Given the number of things changed via Amendments to the Constitution over the countries history, and the current climate against gun ownership - that shows a lot of faith on your part. Perhaps you are right and the country is EXACTLY the same as it was in the 18th century and no further protections are needed.

You are no doubt an intelligent man that does not need the numerous and profound changes the country has undergone in it's history explained to you.

originally posted by: Leonidas
So you are saying that you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion of gun ownership?

My contribution is to encourage everyone who is able to exercise the Second Amendment rights to their fullest extent and advocate for no further regulation but better enforcement of laws currently on the books.

Nothing to help make sure the rights of citizens to own guns gaining greater acceptance with the skeptics?

I am not interested in appeasing skeptics who are more interested in further curtailing my rights. I do not need see the need to have any more discourse other then to remind them that this right is guaranteed by the Constitution.

You are totally confident there is no risk of having those rights seriously curtailed - or worse in the current political climate?

They have already been curtailed and vocal advocates have prevented and in some cases, reversed, these hindrances to our Natural Rights.

You are happy to just leave something this important to a clause in the constitution that could be changed by any administration that has the political will and support to do so?

The administration cannot change this pell-mell, otherwise they would have done so on day one.

Given the number of things changed via Amendments to the Constitution over the countries history, and the current climate against gun ownership - that shows a lot of faith on your part. Perhaps you are right and the country is EXACTLY the same as it was in the 18th century and no further protections are needed.

This is a straw man, the country can change but our rights do not.

You are no doubt an intelligent man that does not need the numerous and profound changes the country has undergone in it's history explained to you.

I answered your questions now please answer mine:


So what aspects of the Second Amendment need to change due to social, technical, geographic or demographic reasons?

How will the nation be better governed by any proposed changes?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Leonidas
So you are saying that you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion of gun ownership?

My contribution is to encourage everyone who is able to exercise the Second Amendment rights to their fullest extent and advocate for no further regulation but better enforcement of laws currently on the books.

So...no contribution from you then. Just restate what's already there and already under substantial threat.

Nothing to help make sure the rights of citizens to own guns gaining greater acceptance with the skeptics?

I am not interested in appeasing skeptics who are more interested in further curtailing my rights. I do not need see the need to have any more discourse other then to remind them that this right is guaranteed by the Constitution.

There is no point preaching to the converted and you better start paying attention to the skeptics because they are the ones after the guns, not the supporters. And you know they have support. They are the ones we need to worry about, not the current supporters of the 2nd. I cant believe you need to have that explained to you. Gain the majority of the skeptics understanding of the issue and all pressure to come after guns will disappear. That requires a 21st Century solution.

You are totally confident there is no risk of having those rights seriously curtailed - or worse in the current political climate?

They have already been curtailed and vocal advocates have prevented and in some cases, reversed, these hindrances to our Natural Rights.

Agreed. So why not do something about it before it is too late? Standing by quoting the Constitution will accomplish nothing.

You are happy to just leave something this important to a clause in the constitution that could be changed by any administration that has the political will and support to do so?

The administration cannot change this pell-mell, otherwise they would have done so on day one.

Given the number of things changed via Amendments to the Constitution over the countries history, and the current climate against gun ownership - that shows a lot of faith on your part. Perhaps you are right and the country is EXACTLY the same as it was in the 18th century and no further protections are needed.

The Constitution is never changed "pell-mell".: lol: However it has been changed often, as you are no doubt aware. Get your head out of the sand, there is a ground swell of popular support against the 2nd and politicians are paying attention.

This is a straw man, the country can change but our rights do not.

The rights of citizens have changed a number of times already. The DEFINITION of "citizen" itself has changed a number of times.

(You aren't using "straw man" correctly, FYI)

You are no doubt an intelligent man that does not need the numerous and profound changes the country has undergone in it's history explained to you.

I answered your questions now please answer mine:


So what aspects of the Second Amendment need to change due to social, technical, geographic or demographic reasons?

How will the nation be better governed by any proposed changes?

Do you really need to be told how the Country has changed demographically and physically? Seriously? You know there are more than thirteen colonies now right? I think there were fewer than 350 million citizens at the time as well. Are you aware America is the 4th largest nation on earth now? If you need to know how immigration has alterted the make-up of the country crack a High School text book, or better yet - look out the window.

Is the family unit the same as it was 200 years ago? 100? 50? 10?!

You own a computer so I am guessing you have picked up on the fact we have moved past the quill and parchment. How long do you think it used to take to cross the country 200 or 100 years ago? Do you seriously think the internet has not had a huge impact on how fast and how far ideas travel? New ideas? Different ideas?

Immigration: You are aware that the nature of immigration has evolved and changed several times.

Oh, and woman have the vote now, did you hear?

If you think our rights covered under the 2nd Amendment are not under threat more now than ever, you just aren't paying attention.

The framers had an 18th Century solution to an 18th Century question that had little or no resistance at the time. The 2nd Amendment and what it stands for is under attack. The country has changed radically and as you might be aware, there is a great many people that think the 2nd is as antiquated as other Amendments that no longer are part of the Constitution.

Do you really think the country is being well run now? Seriously? The country is profoundly divided on a number of important issues INCLUDING the 2nd!

Doing nothing is not an option.

Pretending the country is not radically different is not an option

(Pardon the poor formatting of this post, please)

a reply to: Leonidas

Setting aside your over the top condescension as I am aware of the changes in the United States over the past 238 years you still did not address my questions:




So what aspects of the Second Amendment need to change due to social, technical, geographic or demographic reasons?

How will the nation be better governed by any proposed changes?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Leonidas

Setting aside your over the top condescension as I am aware of the changes in the United States over the past 238 years you still did not address my questions:




So what aspects of the Second Amendment need to change due to social, technical, geographic or demographic reasons?

How will the nation be better governed by any proposed changes?

Asked and answered.

Clearly you believe the 2nd Amendment and what it stands for is completely secure and under no threat whatsoever. I envy you the America you think you still live in.

originally posted by: Leonidas
Asked and answered.

Really? Must have missed the quote and reply part of your diatribe.

Clearly you believe the 2nd Amendment and what it stands for is completely secure and under no threat whatsoever. I envy you the America you think you still live in.

Really? Where did I state that?

I feel that unless we (the pro-Second Amendment crowd) do not perpetually remain vigilant and organized there will constantly be politicians seeking to curtail our Natural Rights.

By constantly supporting groups and citizens seeking to overturn un-Constitutional regulations and/or restrictions we do our small part in upholding what the Founders enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Not enough.

There is a well organized and well funded movement to end the 2nd and what it stands for. "Staying Vigilant" will do nothing to increase support for the 2nd.

The wrong combination of President, Congressional Super Majority, Supreme Court and some unfortunate chain of events - real or orchestrated - may be all it takes.

Genuine broad based grass roots support is a must.