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

a reply to: Indigo5

It seems clear that the 'regulation" of militias falls under state authority until by whatever constitutionally legal use the state armies are called into federal service.

As well the state regulation only applies to standing state militias.

NOTE: Under the Kennedy administration, the Alabama Guard that was called out by the governor to keep peace in a famous civil rights protest, but was later "federalized" and turned on the governor. Now I am not getting into the rightness of the cause on one side or another but pointing out there may have really been no legal way that President Kennedy could have ordered this.

Another case. WACO. Once hostilities broke out between a federal agency and a group of armed citizens the state militia had trumping legal right to step in and take control of this matter. Which did not happen.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
It's even worse, the feds have many "armies", and a good deal of them armies are pointed right at the people. ATF, IRS, FBI etc etc. Like 95% of the alphabet agencies should have never been allowed to be formed.

Whats more is that the "national guard" has become far federalized to qualify its justification under a 2nd amendment establishment. Does anyone actually trust, if such were the case, that your state guard could be counted on to resist a tyrannical and illegal federal intrusion?

At the end of the day, the National Guard are our sons, daughters, brothers and sisters and also not largely deployed abroad for long periods of time like regular soldiers.

I'd fear a military that has been deployed for the past 5-10 years in intense-lawless-conflict environments like Iraq and Afghanistan returning home to confront civilians much more than the local national guard.

Either way...they are all people and the vast majority of them have strong roots to their communities and families.

The other factor that rings true to me is that since the time of the American Revolution, when a people rise up in unison to overthrow a tyrant, they succeed despite the quantity and caliber of their arms. The only exception to that is in secretarian factors that strongly divide that uprising. Equal parity in arms between the population and government is not a requirement for overthrowing a government. The Syrian uprising would have been done in a month if not for a significant chunk of the citizens being supporters of the regime, plus the involvement of Islamic extremists, which has made even those opposed to the regime support the regime...the devil you know vs. the insane hordes.

The United States has the most thoroughly armed citizenry on the globe...nearly a gun for every man, woman and child...and not 30 year old, duct taped together crap either. Our wealth affords us the highest quality weapons.

Entirely sufficient to confront tyrants...if a native soil uprising in unison became warranted. If you want every local private militia to be on equal par with the US military, that would be the opposite of the founders intent. They did not want the country to be vulnerable to insurrection by relatively small bands of people looking to effect change through violence.

I'd say if the Founders and Framers were to write this document today, they might not want us running around with shoulder fired missiles and what not, but there would definitely be some kind of mechanism for us to gain access to those weapons if needed.

What a lot of folks aren't taking into consideration is that they just fought a war against their ruling government. It would stand to reason that they would write that same amendment to give the citizenry a fighting chance against a tyrannical government that owns that high powered weapons.

At one time England wanted to disarm them too.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

And the Federalists:

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton

If the people cannot shoot down drones, and cannot destroy the police armored vehicles they are not properly armed. There is a problem with the people owning guns, they do not own the kind of military grade weapons that are needed.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The Founders were certainly intelligent and thoughtful men. However, the constitution was written 225 years ago in a time when being on parity with the military meant something entirely different than it does now. I'm not for disarming people but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that it's practical for the public to possess military weaponry.

Fighter jets?
Bombers?
Drones?
Tanks?
Nukes?

The Constitution creates the foundation for an extensible framework, it's not equatable to something intended to be immutable like the Ten Commandments.

What you are missing in a tactical comparison and timeframe relativity is that the people have the right to resist tyranny with the force of arms. Thus it extends.

The spirit of the 2nd amendment is that the people should be able to effectively resist a tyrannical govt - nukes are strategic weapons, and thus not of much use in an internal conflict.

So the weapons that should be kept by the militia's should be tactical weapons, and useful against all types of military vehicles.

Tanks are like aircraft carriers - they are only really useful for projecting force if your opponents dont have the means to stop them - and useless if they do. Disposable anti tank weapons are very cheap, and effective - if they were widely held by people - then it would mean the govt could not rely on using armored vehicles - checkmate.

I believe that people should all keep a minimum of a sidearm, assault rifle, and auto shotgun, that however is not enough. Every able bodied person should have one of the following in addition to the previous - an anti materiel sniper rifle, anti tank weapon, grenades and/or mortar.

The local militia's should have a surface to air missile battery, at least one helicopter and some artillery.

If this kind of urban battle were to unfold, water and food supplies would be the biggest factor in deciding an outcome - after that it would come down to who could keep a helicopter (or drone) in the air the longest.

a reply to: Indigo5

With consideration to your comments, my point was that the Guard is really intertwined with the federal powers and there in may hold their sympathies which was not the idea that gave birth to the 2nd amendment as it related to the states during the debate for the constitution at the end of the Articles of Confederation.

The debate as Madison saw it was resistance at the state and even city level to whatever mechanism a tyrant/usurping adventurer could use to come to power to include the Federal Government as well as state governments and local uprisings. The fear was really not with the dangers of a WACO type compound but those that could gain control of the larger theaters that would be conducive to the aspirations of a real rising threat.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

Geez, I wonder if they cite where they pulled the definition.

EX: The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989)

(A) Please provide a link.
(B) The definition of "regulate" offered in 1980 does not seem relevant when searching for the meaning of the word at time of writing the 2ND Amendment.
(C) 1690 is the year most dictionaries provide for the ORIGIN of the word, NOT a definition. I could be wrong about you or the original author, whomever they be and the confusion there...but it is impossible to tell when sources and links are not provided. Apart from that confusion over word origin vs. definition...1690 was a CENTURY before the 2nd Amendment.

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

No, the reference was not to the origin of the word, but to how it was used in the 1690 edition and it explicitly said so.

I'm sorry that there are no editions on line that can be linked to , but multiple references refer to the dictionary in the proper citation that one does one writes papers. That you cannot see a direct link and claim that is proof that the other definitions were not in common use at the time is disingenuous because you, yourself have not provided any links to the actual, original text and even among those links that you provided, we have seen several examples of the definitions we have been pointing out, even if you parse them from your posts.

Again, from a different source, referencing the original source material and properly annotating it:

The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following examples of usage for the term "well regulated": 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us . . . well-regulated Appetites, and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time . . . is the adjustment of the difference of time, as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Major." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well- regulated American embryo city." One definition of the word "well" in the Oxford English Dictionary is "satisfactorily in respect of conduct or action." One of The Oxford English Dictionary definitions for the term "regulated" is "b. Of troops: Properly disciplined." The one example of usage is: "1690: Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 'We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.'"

The proof is in the pudding, as they say. The FF never used your definition and their writings clearly use the definition that we have been pointing out. In addition, they did not make a single gun control law, so one can see by their actions that they did not intend to control guns. A private citizen could and did own a cannon if they could afford one at the time.

a reply to: Amagnon

I understand what you are saying. My response to the poster had to do with an line of reasoning that holds that since a local militia is out gunned in todays age the 2nd amendment is moot or useless anyway. My point is that even so, as we may debate the tactical capacities, we should remember more importantly that the 2nd confers the right to resist, that the government can go south is recognized in the 2nd and that state governments are a balance of power not only legislatively but militarily.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

This is very simple in nature.

Regulated is applied to the Militia, not to the Bearing Arms.

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.

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"...
WHY? necessary to the security of a free State
HOW? the people to keep and bear Arms

Not just "the People"...but specifically a "Militia"...and not just a "Militia", but a "regulated" militia...and not just "regulated", but "Well regulated"...

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."

If they had no intent of regulating the right to bear arms.

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.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

Geez, I wonder if they cite where they pulled the definition.

EX: The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989)

(A) Please provide a link.
(B) The definition of "regulate" offered in 1980 does not seem relevant when searching for the meaning of the word at time of writing the 2ND Amendment.
(C) 1690 is the year most dictionaries provide for the ORIGIN of the word, NOT a definition. I could be wrong about you or the original author, whomever they be and the confusion there...but it is impossible to tell when sources and links are not provided. Apart from that confusion over word origin vs. definition...1690 was a CENTURY before the 2nd Amendment.

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

No, the reference was not to the origin of the word, but to how it was used in the 1690 edition and it explicitly said so.

Nothing personal, but I stopped reading right there. Still no links or citations to back up your claim. You are simply saying what other people said and not even linking to those other people?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

This is very simple in nature.

Regulated is applied to the Militia, not to the Bearing Arms.

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.

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"...
WHY? necessary to the security of a free State
HOW? the people to keep and bear Arms

Not just "the People"...but specifically a "Militia"...and not just a "Militia", but a "regulated" militia...and not just "regulated", but "Well regulated"...

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."

If they had not intent of regulating the right to bear arms.

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.

But this is not true. How do we know? They made ZERO laws regulating the private ownership of arms.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

Geez, I wonder if they cite where they pulled the definition.

EX: The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989)

(A) Please provide a link.
(B) The definition of "regulate" offered in 1980 does not seem relevant when searching for the meaning of the word at time of writing the 2ND Amendment.
(C) 1690 is the year most dictionaries provide for the ORIGIN of the word, NOT a definition. I could be wrong about you or the original author, whomever they be and the confusion there...but it is impossible to tell when sources and links are not provided. Apart from that confusion over word origin vs. definition...1690 was a CENTURY before the 2nd Amendment.

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

No, the reference was not to the origin of the word, but to how it was used in the 1690 edition and it explicitly said so.

Nothing personal, but I stopped reading right there. Still no links or citations to back up your claim. You are simply saying other people said it, so it is true and not even linking to those other people?

I take it you have never written a college paper then?

The citations are there, in proper citation format. You might have to pick up a "book," though.

Even you, yourself have not been able to directly link to the text of the Oxford 1690 dictionary and the only dictionary you could link directly was a pocket one that had but one or two lines per word. You have, yourself, not provided this "proof" you demand form others.

The founding fathers must have climbed into a time machine and flown to the present, because they use the same definition we have in the context of their writings and in the fact that they made absolutely no regulations on private firearms ownership.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The Founders were certainly intelligent and thoughtful men. However, the constitution was written 225 years ago in a time when being on parity with the military meant something entirely different than it does now. I'm not for disarming people but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that it's practical for the public to possess military weaponry.

Fighter jets?
Bombers?
Drones?
Tanks?
Nukes?

The Constitution creates the foundation for an extensible framework, it's not equatable to something intended to be immutable like the Ten Commandments.

Nor were the framers of the constitution ignorant of the fact that there were war ships and cannons that they also knew the average private citizen would not care to own.

When they framed the first amendment, they has no knowledge of telegraph, telephone, internet, cellphone, television either and does that mean that the first amendment does not apply to those newer technologies? Your liberal logic is flawed at its core.

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Remind me again why I should hold the opinions of the "founders" higher than anyone elses?


The same guys who spoke of equality while not allowing women to vote...the same guys who spoke of freedom while owning slaves.

Yes...tell me why I should think they had a firm grasp on reality and why we should have to continue to conform to their outdated opinions?

hold the opinions of the founding fathers above your own based on one simple fact----they were much more intelligent than you.

They created the great compromise in order to get the constitution to become ratified. They knew to a man that slavery was wrong and created the mechanism to eventually have it eradicated. Don't believe me? Read Coopers Union speech by Abraham Lincoln.

As far as womens right to vote?
They believed that women were not educated enough to vote on political issues and women of their time for the most part wanted nothing to do with politics. So to paint the founding fathers as some sort of evil oppressors is disingenuous on your part.

If you do not like the freedoms and liberty then move to a more liberal country---bet you won't though.

a reply to: Logarock

Yup - np - I understood, I couldnt find the original post, so I quoted yours - I was agreeing with you

Personally I dont believe a govt is necessary in our modern world. The ability of computers to handle large amounts of information allows us to entertain the idea of self government - with complete decentralization. I think historically there was a case to be made for some centralization - but now we can easily manage public social contracts via an open source, yet encrypted system.

The only legitimate function of govt in my opinion was to adjudicate and enforce the law - that function can be handled now by the people.

While I dont agree with the idea of govt, the US system was a pretty decent attempt - but it is worthless if the weapons are all controlled centrally.

So many people who dont like guns think nothing of having weapons in the hands of police and military - these organizations are founded on blind obedience, and are easily controlled from the top - in other words you are putting all the guns into the hands of one person .. it seems to me that the possibility of disaster is far greater having such a concentration of weapons, than the isolated incidents of weapons misuse if they were distributed.

If people are really against guns, then they should start first by targeting the groups who have the highest concentrations of of deadly weapons - the police and military.

I see the law as being as follows; "Whosoever infringes the property of a sentient being without their consent commits an unlawful act." The complexity of modern law is simply an effort to disenfranchise people from having access to the law, because it has been made incomprehensible. It is also a way to disguise 'orders' as if they were laws. Orders from authority that contravene the basic law, are unlawful - but today there are thousands and thousands of such orders.

On a side note - the source of the most egregious problems in the world and in society today stem from a failure to understand the difference between private and common property. Anything that is contingent on a human being is private property - body, mind, speech, labor and products of labor (and many others) - but all those things which are not contingent on human beings, air, water, real estate, fish in the sea, naturally growing tree's, oil and gas reserves, minerals and living things - are all common property.

Because nobody worked for those things, they should belong equally to everyone - that is; when ever someone wants to make use of natural resources - they should pay rent and it should be divided among the people. This would eliminate all of the fighting for ownership of natural resources - and halt the monopolies.

Interestingly it would drive the price of real estate to zero - buildings and improvements of course would add value and would not attract rent, but the unimproved real estate would have no sale value - because the rent (paid to everyone) would eat up all the (unearned) profit from land rental. I would however allow that each person needs someplace to live, so a small amount of land could be allowed to live on and not attract rent - say a 1/4 acre or some such.

a reply to: 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.

Its simply stating that states can keep a regulated and organized military. For its own security and freedom. The reason the right of the people is mentioned was not to give the impression that the people could also be ruled by an oppressive state.

Yes and if you ask me this dang thing was written with Madison biting his lip! It is purposely convoluted. He was a smart guy he could see the problems here that we are demonstrating to this day. He was more concerned with passaging powerful state concerns if you ask me but had to toss the "peoples" right in there to remind that dang states that the militia was the only thing they could regulate here. Its twofold....the states right to militia and the peoples rights to arms....neither one can be infringed and are to some point joined.......but not all together. LOL

a reply to: Indigo5

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

a reply to: Amagnon

10-4 there foxy lady.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

Geez, I wonder if they cite where they pulled the definition.

EX: The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989)

(A) Please provide a link.
(B) The definition of "regulate" offered in 1980 does not seem relevant when searching for the meaning of the word at time of writing the 2ND Amendment.
(C) 1690 is the year most dictionaries provide for the ORIGIN of the word, NOT a definition. I could be wrong about you or the original author, whomever they be and the confusion there...but it is impossible to tell when sources and links are not provided. Apart from that confusion over word origin vs. definition...1690 was a CENTURY before the 2nd Amendment.

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

No, the reference was not to the origin of the word, but to how it was used in the 1690 edition and it explicitly said so.

Nothing personal, but I stopped reading right there. Still no links or citations to back up your claim. You are simply saying other people said it, so it is true and not even linking to those other people?

I take it you have never written a college paper then?

The citations are there, in proper citation format. You might have to pick up a "book," though.

I will be careful not to respond in the same tone you chose to.

You are cutting and pasting content from another site without linking to it.

You are not providing sources for that content.

And that content is not providing sources for those claims.

IF that claim that in 1690...a century before the 2nd Amendment was written...that in 1690, their was a reference to text using the word in the way that you would like to interpret it...that still would be a poor retort to me actually providing a direct link to the scanned dictionary from 1792...12 months after the writing of the 2nd Amendment vs. a vague textual reference from a century earlier.

Despite repeated requests for original sources if not original arguments, you continue to be cutting and pasting others work absent links or sources, I will end our discussion now.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

Geez, I wonder if they cite where they pulled the definition.

EX: The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989)

(A) Please provide a link.
(B) The definition of "regulate" offered in 1980 does not seem relevant when searching for the meaning of the word at time of writing the 2ND Amendment.
(C) 1690 is the year most dictionaries provide for the ORIGIN of the word, NOT a definition. I could be wrong about you or the original author, whomever they be and the confusion there...but it is impossible to tell when sources and links are not provided. Apart from that confusion over word origin vs. definition...1690 was a CENTURY before the 2nd Amendment.

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

No, the reference was not to the origin of the word, but to how it was used in the 1690 edition and it explicitly said so.

Nothing personal, but I stopped reading right there. Still no links or citations to back up your claim. You are simply saying other people said it, so it is true and not even linking to those other people?

I take it you have never written a college paper then?

The citations are there, in proper citation format. You might have to pick up a "book," though.

I will be careful not to respond in the same tone you chose to.

You are cutting and pasting content from another site without linking to it.

You are not providing sources for that content.

And that content is not providing sources for those claims.

IF that claim that in 1690...a century before the 2nd Amendment was written...that in 1690, their was a reference to text using the word in the way that you would like to interpret it...that still would be a poor retort to me actually providing a direct link to the scanned dictionary from 1792...12 months after the writing of the 2nd Amendment vs. a vague textual reference from a century earlier.

Despite repeated requests for original sources if not original arguments, your continue to be cutting and pasting others work absent links or sources, I will end our discussion now.

And yet you have neither provided the same materials that you demand from others. You are being disingenuous in that level of demand.

We see by their writings and the very fact that they did not make a single firearms regulation, that the FF did not agree with your limited view on the language.

Please point out a single firearms law or regulation the FF voted for and pass onto the citizens.