History 101: Why the 2nd Amendment?

[Feynman Lives!]

There are two previous threads posted before this one. I highly recommend you read them so we don't derail this one. Or, at least, be aware of what they are about.

One is about the grammatical structure of the 2nd A

English 101 For Gun Advocates.

I wrote a series of posts a long time ago for another site, hoping to get serious posters to comment on the facts here included. This is the first in the series. I would like to try it on this one. The SCOTUS Heller decision is the Law of the Land. However, it uses linguistic and historical...

debatepolitics.com

The other is about the meaning of the idiom ".... to keep and bear arms"

English 102: "... to keep and bear arms"

Every time one talks about the 2nd A, people start debating if it's an individual or a collective or a civil right. BTW, one day I might open a thread explaining why I think it's neither an individual or a collective right. But this is not it. Because I think it's not as relevant a debate as...

debatepolitics.com

If your comments are about either of those topics, I would be very grateful if you would post them in the proper thread.

First of all, let me explain what my argument is NOT.

1- It is NOT that our forefathers did not value people owning firearms. They did! It has nothing to do with any of these threads.

2- It is NOT that the 2nd A limits the right to own weapons. That is not my point. My point is, as you will see, that it doesn't address the matter.

3- It is NOT that an individual right to own arms doesn't exist. It does! At least for now. But that's thanks to the Heller decision. Not to the 2nd A as written. It was legislation passed by Scalia., but that will also be a different topic.

4- It is NOT whether or not this individual "right" should exist. Full disclosure: personally I do believe it shouldn't. But that's not what this thread is about.

5- It is also NOT about who was part of the well-regulated militia mentioned in the 2nd A This will be the main point of the next thread. But not this one. Hint: regardless of what some of you might have heard, it was definitely NOT "everybody".

There is one simple fact: during the debates about the 2nd A, there was a lot of debate about militias. But basically (other than what I mention a few lines down) no mention of an individual right to own weapons. It was just... not an issue. People owned guns, like they owned a shirt, a house or a horse. It was just another piece of property. Owning guns was not a controversial issue at the time. Our forefathers probably felt no need to address it in the Bill of Rights.

But very little mention of an individual right to own weapons were in the discussions about the 2nd A. And in the few instances when there was, it was quickly dismissed. For instance, the minority anti-Federalists of Pennsylvania wanted to include "... for the defense of themselves and their own state, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals."

It was not only voted down, it was ridiculed. During the debates, Noah Webster asked sarcastically why not add “...that Congress shall never restrain any inhabitant of America from eating and drinking, at seasonable times, or prevent his lying on his left side, in a long winter’s night, or even on his back, when he is fatigued by lying on his right.”

Most of the framers didn't trust a standing army to defend us. So our "army" were the militias. Our nations depended on the militias for our national defense. But they also feared that the states would neglect the militias. So clearly the 2nd A was meant to protect the right of the people to form part of the militias. Which meant that the main purpose of the 2nd A was to RESTRICT the ability of state governments to neglect their militias. This, unlike some right to own weapons (which was never mentioned), was the main theme in the debates.

Bottom line: an individual right to own weapons was simply not addressed in the 2nd A . It wasn't in the debates in Congress, it wasn't mentioned (other than explained above), it simply wasn't an issue they paid ANY attention to. They didn't feel the need.

So the question is: how could anybody assume that the framers intended the 2nd A to protect gun ownership if they never even MENTIONED gun ownership?

Here is the Historian's Amicus brief, where all this was addressed:
https://www.nraila.org/heller/conamicusbriefs/07-290_amicus_historians.pdf

 

[JMB1911A1]

100% wrong. As usual.

Historical Background of the Second Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

James Madison produced an initial draft of the Second Amendment as follows:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

It has always been an individual right.

Definition of KEEP

to retain in one's possession or power; to refrain from granting, giving, or allowing; to have in control… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

1 a : to retain in one's possession or power
kept the money we found

How do you KEEP in one's possession without owning it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

If this is a grammar debate then look at the meaning of other uses of “the right of the people to…” within the constitution and see if those are treated as being individual rights.

You might be better off sticking to the (more commonly used by “gun control” proponents) “no right is absolute” argument than trying to deny that “the right of the people to…” wasn’t intended to apply to (all) individuals.

 

[Mycroft]

Actually, the wording of the 2nd Amendment DOES refer to gun ownership.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

 

[Peacenik]

There are two previous threads posted before this one. I highly recommend you read them so we don't derail this one. Or, at least, be aware of what they are about.

One is about the grammatical structure of the 2nd A

English 101 For Gun Advocates.

I wrote a series of posts a long time ago for another site, hoping to get serious posters to comment on the facts here included. This is the first in the series. I would like to try it on this one. The SCOTUS Heller decision is the Law of the Land. However, it uses linguistic and historical...

debatepolitics.com

The other is about the meaning of the idiom ".... to keep and bear arms"

English 102: "... to keep and bear arms"

Every time one talks about the 2nd A, people start debating if it's an individual or a collective or a civil right. BTW, one day I might open a thread explaining why I think it's neither an individual or a collective right. But this is not it. Because I think it's not as relevant a debate as...

debatepolitics.com

If your comments are about either of those topics, I would be very grateful if you would post them in the proper thread.

First of all, let me explain what my argument is NOT.

1- It is NOT that our forefathers did not value people owning firearms. They did! It has nothing to do with any of these threads.

2- It is NOT that the 2nd A limits the right to own weapons. That is not my point. My point is, as you will see, that it doesn't address the matter.

3- It is NOT that an individual right to own arms doesn't exist. It does! At least for now. But that's thanks to the Heller decision. Not to the 2nd A as written. It was legislation passed by Scalia., but that will also be a different topic.

4- It is NOT whether or not this individual "right" should exist. Full disclosure: personally I do believe it shouldn't. But that's not what this thread is about.

5- It is also NOT about who was part of the well-regulated militia mentioned in the 2nd A This will be the main point of the next thread. But not this one. Hint: regardless of what some of you might have heard, it was definitely NOT "everybody".

There is one simple fact: during the debates about the 2nd A, there was a lot of debate about militias. But basically (other than what I mention a few lines down) no mention of an individual right to own weapons. It was just... not an issue. People owned guns, like they owned a shirt, a house or a horse. It was just another piece of property. Owning guns was not a controversial issue at the time. Our forefathers probably felt no need to address it in the Bill of Rights.

But very little mention of an individual right to own weapons were in the discussions about the 2nd A. And in the few instances when there was, it was quickly dismissed. For instance, the minority anti-Federalists of Pennsylvania wanted to include "... for the defense of themselves and their own state, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals."

It was not only voted down, it was ridiculed. During the debates, Noah Webster asked sarcastically why not add “...that Congress shall never restrain any inhabitant of America from eating and drinking, at seasonable times, or prevent his lying on his left side, in a long winter’s night, or even on his back, when he is fatigued by lying on his right.”

Most of the framers didn't trust a standing army to defend us. So our "army" were the militias. Our nations depended on the militias for our national defense. But they also feared that the states would neglect the militias. So clearly the 2nd A was meant to protect the right of the people to form part of the militias. Which meant that the main purpose of the 2nd A was to RESTRICT the ability of state governments to neglect their militias. This, unlike some right to own weapons (which was never mentioned), was the main theme in the debates.

Bottom line: an individual right to own weapons was simply not addressed in the 2nd A . It wasn't in the debates in Congress, it wasn't mentioned (other than explained above), it simply wasn't an issue they paid ANY attention to. They didn't feel the need.

So the question is: how could anybody assume that the framers intended the 2nd A to protect gun ownership if they never even MENTIONED gun ownership?

Here is the Historian's Amicus brief, where all this was addressed:
https://www.nraila.org/heller/conamicusbriefs/07-290_amicus_historians.pdf

Very well stated. And quite above the heads of most gun proponents. They have their long standing beliefs. Showing them bothersome facts and history is not going to change them. They will believe what they want to believe.

 

[NatMorton]

Which meant that the main purpose of the 2nd A was to RESTRICT the ability of state governments to neglect their militias.

Your argument falls apparent here. Had that been their intent, they presumably would have written the second in a way that addressed the states, i.e. as an obligation to the states. They didn’t. They wrote the second addressing it to the federal government and limiting the federal government’s authority to deny the people’s right to bear arms.

Recall that the Bill of Rights, when written, didn’t apply to the states. That came with the 14th amendment almost 80 years later.

 

[Gozaburo]

There are two previous threads posted before this one. I highly recommend you read them so we don't derail this one. Or, at least, be aware of what they are about.

One is about the grammatical structure of the 2nd A

English 101 For Gun Advocates.

I wrote a series of posts a long time ago for another site, hoping to get serious posters to comment on the facts here included. This is the first in the series. I would like to try it on this one. The SCOTUS Heller decision is the Law of the Land. However, it uses linguistic and historical...

debatepolitics.com

To me, the liberal position on gun ownership has always been totally confounding.

Allegedly the American people have the agency to vote on matters of incomprehensible spending, devastating foreign policy (which includes guns, BIG ones), and society-altering social policy, but Americans do not possess the agency to own modern arms and weapons? Not only does this seem logically inconsistent, but it's also at odds with the American mythos of rugged individualism and the pioneer spirit - you're fighting an uphill battle.

I think Republican's who claim guns are necessary for tyrannical governments are being insincere (or they're just dumb). Modern technology and mass media makes it totally unnecessary for the State to use conventional weapons against its own people when it's far more effective and less costly to just gaslight one half of the population against the other. No, the gun debate for the right is like the issue of sexuality for the left. For the right, a man's means to defend himself is a necessary right to be able to self actualize and maintain his capacity for self determination.

 

[Ginger Ale]

"Slave codes" back up your argument. Guns were viewed as property rights, just like other property from my understanding.

If the intent was that man could own guns, black people would have been included. Since they were not, it proves guns as property only, not a "gun" right for all citizens, but a property right in which blacks could not.

Virginia enacted a statute that led to a total gun ban for free Mulattos, Negroes and Indians. In 1712, the statute was revised, calling for a total gun ban for Negroes to prevent insurrections, according to “Laws Designed to Disarm Slaves Freedmen, and African Americans,” a research paper.

In 1792, blacks were excluded from joining the militia, which was created under the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The militia was limited to able-bodied white men between 18 and 45.

Other states enacted similar laws. In Florida, homes of slaves and free blacks were searched for guns. If a gun was found, it was confiscated.

In 1828, Florida said free blacks could carry guns if they had court permission. It wasn’t until the Civil War that black men who fought for the Union Army were free to carrying guns.

Prohibitions against blacks owning guns continues to crop up.

In 1968, Congress passed the Gun Control Act. Robert Sherrill, a supporter, said the legislation was passed not to control guns but to control blacks.

Gun control historically has meant prohibiting blacks from owning one

Since the massacre of students at a Parkland, Florida, high school, the airways have been buzzing with talk about gun control—making it tougher through state and local laws for individuals to own a gun. In today’s world, gun control may mean the same thing to blacks and whites, but that hasn’t...

theatlantavoice.com

Thankfully Heller opened up gun ownership to all, and rid us of the racial discriminating laws related to gun ownership. Now, there are still some personal issues with this, with regards to some people, but, Heller did help clear up legal ownership.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

At the first constitutional convention, there was a faction who argued against having a standing army. They still remembered how they had been abused by King George's army. Confiscation of the locals' weapons, musket balls, and powder was a common practice of that army.

Fortunately, smart people in the room understood that they could not defend the nation if they had to rely on Minutemen in the future. If it were not for the French, Washington's ragtag army would have lost the revolution.

The 2nd amendment (as well as the 3rd) was a compromise to appease those who thought no army was the way to go. It was understood that each state would be responsible for training and maintaining "a well regulated militia" to be called up in the event of any attack. Most of the states were negligent in fulfilling that responsibility until there was a crisis. Costs were a burden, as was getting men to sign up when they had other work to do.

Of course, within a few decades it was clear that even state militias were not going to be adequate (War of 1812) to defend the nation.

 

[ttwtt78640]

At the first constitutional convention, there was a faction who argued against having a standing army. They still remembered how they had been abused by King George's army. Confiscation of the locals' weapons, musket balls, and powder was a common practice of that army.

Fortunately, smart people in the room understood that they could not defend the nation if they had to rely on Minutemen in the future. If it were not for the French, Washington's ragtag army would have lost the revolution.

The 2nd amendment (as well as the 3rd) was a compromise to appease those who thought no army was the way to go. It was understood that each state would be responsible for training and maintaining "a well regulated militia" to be called up in the event of any attack. Most of the states were negligent in fulfilling that responsibility until there was a crisis. Costs were a burden, as was getting men to sign up when they had other work to do.

Of course, within a few decades it was clear that even state militias were not going to be adequate (War of 1812) to defend the nation.

Fine, amend the constitution to fix that ‘mistake’.

 

[noonereal]

Actually, the wording of the 2nd Amendment DOES refer to gun ownership.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

You left off the most important part.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

100% wrong. As usual.

Cool. Name SOMETHING that is wrong.

 

[JMB1911A1]

What "progressives" always forget is the purpose of the Bill of Rights. It was laid out in the preamble to the BoR.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Misconstruction or abuse of whose powers? The new Federal government.
Declaratory or restrictive phrases acting on who? The new Federal government.

The Bill of Rights did NOT grant any rights. It was specifically put in place to prevent the new Federal government from infringing on existing rights. We then had to extend those protections of our right from state government interference in the 14A.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Cool. Name SOMETHING that is wrong.

Your idea that the Bill of Rights grants any rights at all.

 

[mrjurrs]

There are two previous threads posted before this one. I highly recommend you read them so we don't derail this one. Or, at least, be aware of what they are about.

One is about the grammatical structure of the 2nd A

English 101 For Gun Advocates.

I wrote a series of posts a long time ago for another site, hoping to get serious posters to comment on the facts here included. This is the first in the series. I would like to try it on this one. The SCOTUS Heller decision is the Law of the Land. However, it uses linguistic and historical...

debatepolitics.com

The other is about the meaning of the idiom ".... to keep and bear arms"

English 102: "... to keep and bear arms"

Every time one talks about the 2nd A, people start debating if it's an individual or a collective or a civil right. BTW, one day I might open a thread explaining why I think it's neither an individual or a collective right. But this is not it. Because I think it's not as relevant a debate as...

debatepolitics.com

If your comments are about either of those topics, I would be very grateful if you would post them in the proper thread.

First of all, let me explain what my argument is NOT.

1- It is NOT that our forefathers did not value people owning firearms. They did! It has nothing to do with any of these threads.

2- It is NOT that the 2nd A limits the right to own weapons. That is not my point. My point is, as you will see, that it doesn't address the matter.

3- It is NOT that an individual right to own arms doesn't exist. It does! At least for now. But that's thanks to the Heller decision. Not to the 2nd A as written. It was legislation passed by Scalia., but that will also be a different topic.

4- It is NOT whether or not this individual "right" should exist. Full disclosure: personally I do believe it shouldn't. But that's not what this thread is about.

5- It is also NOT about who was part of the well-regulated militia mentioned in the 2nd A This will be the main point of the next thread. But not this one. Hint: regardless of what some of you might have heard, it was definitely NOT "everybody".

There is one simple fact: during the debates about the 2nd A, there was a lot of debate about militias. But basically (other than what I mention a few lines down) no mention of an individual right to own weapons. It was just... not an issue. People owned guns, like they owned a shirt, a house or a horse. It was just another piece of property. Owning guns was not a controversial issue at the time. Our forefathers probably felt no need to address it in the Bill of Rights.

But very little mention of an individual right to own weapons were in the discussions about the 2nd A. And in the few instances when there was, it was quickly dismissed. For instance, the minority anti-Federalists of Pennsylvania wanted to include "... for the defense of themselves and their own state, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals."

It was not only voted down, it was ridiculed. During the debates, Noah Webster asked sarcastically why not add “...that Congress shall never restrain any inhabitant of America from eating and drinking, at seasonable times, or prevent his lying on his left side, in a long winter’s night, or even on his back, when he is fatigued by lying on his right.”

Most of the framers didn't trust a standing army to defend us. So our "army" were the militias. Our nations depended on the militias for our national defense. But they also feared that the states would neglect the militias. So clearly the 2nd A was meant to protect the right of the people to form part of the militias. Which meant that the main purpose of the 2nd A was to RESTRICT the ability of state governments to neglect their militias. This, unlike some right to own weapons (which was never mentioned), was the main theme in the debates.

Bottom line: an individual right to own weapons was simply not addressed in the 2nd A . It wasn't in the debates in Congress, it wasn't mentioned (other than explained above), it simply wasn't an issue they paid ANY attention to. They didn't feel the need.

So the question is: how could anybody assume that the framers intended the 2nd A to protect gun ownership if they never even MENTIONED gun ownership?

Here is the Historian's Amicus brief, where all this was addressed:
https://www.nraila.org/heller/conamicusbriefs/07-290_amicus_historians.pdf

fiddle dee dee and folderol

None of these threads mean anything but, mental masturbation.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Your argument falls apparent here. Had that been their intent, they presumably would have written the second in a way that addressed the states, i.e. as an obligation to the states.

The Bill of Rights is not about telling the states what to do. They ARE bound to follow the constitution, though. The 2nd A affirms the right of the people to defend their country. Each state will figure out how to implement that the best way they can. And they only way at the time, in the minds of the framers, was to keep state militias.

In any case, the discussions FOCUSED on the fact that the framers feared the states would neglect the militias. And, like I said, my main point is that there was ZERO mention or consideration of some "right" to OWN weapons. It just wasn't addressed.

They didn’t. They wrote the second addressing it to the federal government and limiting the federal government’s authority to deny the people’s right to bear arms.

Which would ONLY happen if the states neglected the militias.

Recall that the Bill of Rights, when written, didn’t apply to the states.

You have just answered your first objection. The states are bound to uphold the constitution. It doesn't tell them how. But the only possible way at the time was to support the militias.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

To me, the liberal position on gun ownership has always been totally confounding.

This thread is only about the 2nd A. Not about gun ownership, except to point out the fact that it's a matter not addressed in the discussions in Congress that led to the approval of the 2nd A.

Not my intention to dismiss your points. You raise important points. But I would prefer not to derail this thread.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Your idea that the Bill of Rights grants any rights at all.

And you read the word "grant"... where, exactly? How about a QUOTE? So we know what the hell you're talking about.

If you read it from me, feel free to change it to "affirm". It changes nothing I said.

Now... do you h ave anything of substance to say? No? I didn't think so.... People who have serious comments usually use the "quote" function.

 

[Ginger Ale]

fiddle dee dee and folderol

None of these threads mean anything but, mental masturbation.

Well if you're going to put it that way.....

 

[JMB1911A1]

And you read the word "grant"... where, exactly? How about a QUOTE? So we know what the hell you're talking about.

If you read it from me, feel free to change it to "affirm". It changes nothing I said.

Now... do you h ave anything of substance to say? No? I didn't think so.... People who have serious comments usually use the "quote" function.

So, your position is that the BoR "affirms" rights?

Is it an exhaustive list? Is the federal government prevented from abuse of other rights by the BoR?

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Fine, amend the constitution to fix that ‘mistake’.

As this Court has shown, Constitutional amendments are unnecessary.

"Rights" given can be taken away on a whim.

 

[Ginger Ale]

As this Court has shown, Constitutional amendments are unnecessary.

"Rights" given can be taken away on a whim.

Indeed! After all, it's the "translation" that matters, not what's written in the constitution. It's as vague as the Bible for a reason.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

fiddle dee dee and folderol

None of these threads mean anything but, mental masturbation.

Well... I'm flattered but... it's weird. Maybe you should try Pornhub instead.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

So, your position is that the BoR "affirms" rights?

Makes no difference to me. Use whatever word makes you happy. It's irrelevant to my arguments.

And, BTW, I'm only talking about the 2nd A.

 

[ttwtt78640]

As this Court has shown, Constitutional amendments are unnecessary.

"Rights" given can be taken away on a whim.

True, when those “rights” are unstated in the constitution they can more easily become mere state issued privileges or be removed completely, but as we see when “gun control” proponents wish to convert our 2A rights into mere state issued privileges - that’s much harder to do with rights stated in (protected by?) the constitution.

If some right to privacy existed then it would certainly apply to the possession and use of recreational drugs, yet the government (at any level) is free to decide which (if any) recreational drugs are acceptable and which can be banned with criminal penalties for those who dare disagree. The level (stage?) of fetal development (before birth) is never mentioned in the constitution, yet played a key role in federal ‘law making’ by the SCOTUS in both creating and limiting an alleged right to abortion and (legal?) abortion was deemed to be the only (valid?) exception to the fetal homicide law.