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

a reply to: theantediluvian

I'm only pointing out that the Constitution is not an immutable thing,

The constitution clearly says it is an 'immutable' thing.

See the second, and 9th.

Unless people want to live in the epitome of a police state where only the police, and government are the only ones 'allowed' to have guns.

a reply to: TinkerHaus

Yay, red herring!

Not a red herring at all...it is directly on topic. The OP is using the founders as an infallible source to say that since they believed this, it is true.

I am simply saying that the founders had very bad judgment on some very important issues...hence they are not infallible.

Let me introduce my own red herring; Are you saying the people should not have any ability whatsoever to overthrow a government run amok?

The 2nd amendment gives you no right to fight against the United States Government...if you do that, by definition of the Constitution, you are a traitor.

Inequality based on race and/or sex was commonplace during the time of the Founders... What was NOT commonplace was the idea that The People had an obligation to keep their government in check. Should we abandon all good ideas if they come from a person or people who also have some bad ideas?

No, but we shouldn't use them as an infallible source. They lived in a different time than we do now, things that made sense back then don't necessarily make sense today.

That is why it is a weak argument to try to use the Founders opinions to back up their argument. We shouldn't abandon any ideas...but we should openly discuss if something is still applicable today just because it was applicable in the past. And if there is a group that thinks, "Hey...you know it was a vastly different situation back then...maybe it is time to re-evaluate what the 2nd amendment means to us today" shouldn't be automatically cast out as unpatriotic.

Unless you think women who thought, "Hey, maybe we should get the right to vote" weren't unpatriotic in their own quest to question old thinking for new thinking.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
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.

I supplied several quotes on this very sentiment, there are quite a few more that made it clear that the Constitution, while amendable through a delineated process, was much more immutable than some contemporary persons advocate. The concept of military parity was not to be jettisoned because technology may render the citizenries arms obsolete, the citizenry (read: militia) was to have equal footing at all times to reduce the likelihood of tyranny. They made this quite clear.

Fighter jets?
Bombers?
Drones?
Tanks?
Nukes?

Some of the items you listed are already available to the private citizen.

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

I find the Constitution to be more important to the preservation of Liberty then any other document or religious dictum. The Constitution, as the Framers and Founders commented, should be interpreted in the spirit of when it was written.

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

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

Care to take a shot at creating a document with the impact of the constitution?

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

When you consider the age of America I would say they did it pretty fast. There are many countries right now that don't have these rights and still own slaves. Why are you not concerned about them?

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?

They created the most incredible country in the world, backed with documentation to protect it's citizens. 230 years of government has chipped away at those protections. They were tough enough to throw off the oppressors and smart enough to create a document establishing those protections we call rights.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


We have truly lost our way along the path of liberty. Progressive brainwashing is firmly rooted in schools and households across the country. Until this mindset is fixed the constitution means nothing.



Truth is the stage is set for a large scale economic collapse. And when that collapse comes the 2nd will be lost. This is what I see coming down the road. People will gladly hand over firearms for food to feed themselves. And they will also sign up to help out the cause to keep from starving. Think this is far fetched?

originally posted by: kruphix
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.

You are generalizing, not all of the Founders held that view or owned slaves. It also does not minimize the ideals behind the document that we used to help change those incorrect viewpoints.

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?

What opinions rendered in the Constitution are 'outdated'?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Really who the hell 'wants' a nuke ?

There is no place to play with it.

And most people don't have the millions of dollars to even get one.

a reply to: kruphix

I, for one, would be interested in you starting a thread about which of the 10 Bills of Right you would eliminate or change, and the reasons why you think the principles they are based upon are outdated or invalid in today's world.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: beezzer

Not really. This is an issue that, while important, has been, for many, done to death.

The other thread, which I've posted on, is a different topic.

Though you are, to an extent, right. But I feel just as strongly on this issue, as I do on that one. So, too, do many.

Agreed.



They are different topics, but the central theme is still, "Freedom".

originally posted by: theantediluvian
We're more than capable of making our own laws. We don't need to rely on the abilities of men who have been dead for hundreds of years to foretell the future when it's our own present circumstances. That's a ridiculous notion and one that would not be supported by any of the Founders were they alive today.

I have no issues with making laws. I have issues when making laws is in direct conflict with the Constitution.

What I say to people (not directed to you, just in general), if you do not like the 2nd Amendment then politic to have the Constitution changed.

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: TinkerHaus

Yay, red herring!

Not a red herring at all...it is directly on topic. The OP is using the founders as an infallible source to say that since they believed this, it is true.

I am simply saying that the founders had very bad judgment on some very important issues...hence they are not infallible.

Let me introduce my own red herring; Are you saying the people should not have any ability whatsoever to overthrow a government run amok?

The 2nd amendment gives you no right to fight against the United States Government...if you do that, by definition of the Constitution, you are a traitor.

Inequality based on race and/or sex was commonplace during the time of the Founders... What was NOT commonplace was the idea that The People had an obligation to keep their government in check. Should we abandon all good ideas if they come from a person or people who also have some bad ideas?

No, but we shouldn't use them as an infallible source. They lived in a different time than we do now, things that made sense back then don't necessarily make sense today.

That is why it is a weak argument to try to use the Founders opinions to back up their argument. We shouldn't abandon any ideas...but we should openly discuss if something is still applicable today just because it was applicable in the past. And if there is a group that thinks, "Hey...you know it was a vastly different situation back then...maybe it is time to re-evaluate what the 2nd amendment means to us today" shouldn't be automatically cast out as unpatriotic.

Unless you think women who thought, "Hey, maybe we should get the right to vote" weren't unpatriotic in their own quest to question old thinking for new thinking.

You are just regurgitating the progressive talking points,do you really ever think for yourself?

a reply to: kruphix

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?

Now that's quite a statement... How about a thread enumerating those outdated opinions in the Constitution. Very curious to find out more about that.

a reply to: TinkerHaus

We're saying exactly the same thing. I never said the Bill of Rights was more than a few ideas or "opinions" (why is that in quotes?) but please go on.

I get the feeling you're assuming I'm anti-gun? I'm not, I just don't believe that every time guns are mentioned we need to quote the Founders as though their words were some sort of catechisms. I have ample respect for the Founders but you have an apparent ignorance of the history of the interpretation of the First Amendment if you think that our present day protections were established in 1789 as they exist today.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
I have ample respect for the Founders but you have an apparent ignorance of the history of the interpretation of the First Amendment if you think that our present day protections were established in 1789 as they exist today.

I think it was in its purest form when it was conceived and written, it encompassed exactly what we expect and understand it to encompass. It was assailed almost immediately with the Alien and Sedition Acts right up to 'Free Speech Zones' and just as the 2nd Amendment (and our other Rights), it needs to be closely monitored to ensure that it is not further eroded.

a reply to: beezzer



It is indeed about freedom.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: kruphix

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?

Now that's quite a statement... How about a thread enumerating those outdated opinions in the Constitution. Very curious to find out more about that.

I'll give you two right off the bat if you'd like.

1. Let me introduce you to the Seventeenth Amendment.

Originally, Senators were elected by state legislatures:

Article I, section 3

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote

It wasn't until 1913 when the Seventeenth Amendment was passed that we the people became free to directly elect our own Senators.

2. Free Speech. I'll quote myself from a thread from a couple of days ago:

1798 - Alien and Sedition Acts made it illegal to criticize the government in speech or writing.
1801 - Jefferson pardons people convicted for sedition and the acts are not renewed.
1872 - Congress makes mailing "obscene" materials illegal.
1915 - SCOTUS, in Mutual Film Corporation v. Ohio, rules that movies are not protected by the First.
1918 - The Sedition Act makes sedition illegal again. More than 2,000 people are convicted.
1919 - SCOTUS, in Schenck v. United States, upholds the Sedition Act.
1931 - SCOTUS, in Near v. Minnesota, rules against prior restraint.
1940 - Smith Act makes advocating the overthrow of the government illegal.
1951 - SCOTUS, in Dennis v. United States, upholds Smith Act.
1952 - SCOTUS reverses opinion on Burstyn v. Wilson, movies given protection under the First.
1957 - SCOTUS, in Yates v. United States, overturns Smith Act convictions.
1957 - SCOTUS, in Roth v. United States, upholds legality of banning the mailing of obscene material.
1969 - SCOTUS, in Tinker v. Des Moines School Disctrict, upholds rights of students to wear armbands protesting Vietnam War.
1969 - SCOTUS, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, upholds FCC's right regulate broadcasts
1971 - SCOTUS, in New York Times v. United States, upholds NYT's right to publish the Pentagon Papers.
1972 - After SCOTUS ruling in Brandzburg v. Hayes, most states pass Shield Laws to protect the confidentiality of reporter's sources.
1972 - SCOTUS, in Miller v. California, adopts Miller Test for obscenity.
1976 - SCOTUS, in Buckley v. Valeo, rules that campaign donations are free speech.
1988 - SCOTUS, in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, rules against students' free speech in school.
1988 - SCOTUS, in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell rules that public figures cannot sue for damages for depictions in parodies.
1989 - SCOTUS, in Texas v. Johnson, rules that flag burning is protected "symbolic speech."
2004 - SCOTUS rules against COPA, John Ashcroft's attempt to censor the Internet.

I'm sure I've missed some, but you'll notice that First Amendment protection of free speech as we enjoy it today didn't even really get kicked off until 1931 and was promptly cast aside for a couple of decades over fear of Communism. So it irritates me to see delusional people holding the belief that somehow in the past there was more liberty than now because they believe the, now mythical, Founding Fathers were somehow omniscient and infallible. Certainly they were great men and in their era, progressives, but the history of expanding and maintaining liberty in this country has been a centuries long struggle.

a reply to: kruphix

The 2nd amendment gives you no right to fight against the United States Government...if you do that, by definition of the Constitution, you are a traitor.

Is that right ?

Forget about this GD piece of paper pretty much written by the same kind of people ?

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

www.archives.gov...

Anyone who has read both the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.

Can EASILY see why the second amendment was written.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

You have a point. Both are of incredible importance that our Republic would, IMHO, become unrecognizable were they to disappear.

originally posted by: neo96
Is that right ?

Forget about this GD piece of paper pretty much written by the same kind of people ?

Indeed...

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)

Tench Coxe was well aware that the citizenry was the last line of defense against a tyrannical government and was compelled to confront them, violently if necessary.

a reply to: neo96

Indeed.

Nothing in the Constitution invalidates the words of the Declaration of Independence. If anything, all it does is enumerate, and define it.