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

originally posted by: Leonidas
I am embarrassed for people that feel they are qualified to articulately and definitively interpret the intent and meaning of 18th century politicians and bureaucrats as a means to justify their own personal verion of history.



The painfully ridiculous mental gymnastics required to match the articles of the constitution to their own bizarre beliefs is beyond credible.



Deifying the Founding Fathers means taking everything they said without question. If that is true, you have to square your beliefs with EVERYTHING they believed.

So, you are embarrassed for others, but you can claim holding the founders in high regard ("deifying," in your words...which no one is claiming they are gods) means you must "[take] everything they said without question."

That is one of the most assinine things I've read on here so far...by far. You can whole-heartedly believe in their views on the "why" of the 2nd Amendment without espousing their tendency to, say, own slaves. Come on into reality--the water's nice--then we'll possibly take your opinions seriously, otherwise all you are doing is spoiling a debate that could otherwise be intellectually stimulating.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Where the main difference comes in is that these occupations necessitate upkeep and bettering of skills throughout the career, whereas the average civilian, even a well-trained one, does not have access to the same type of training facilities nor the same amount of time with which to hone their skills.

I can't speak for the military but the police upkeep requirements are worthless. Most just put a few through paper for qualification once or twice a year. Any retard can do that.

Of course if you are trying for a spot on SRT or already on one then you'll get more training and more variety in mock real-life scenarios but that is the minority of police.

Anyone can put themselves through that training if they want to. Schools exist all over the country and for a price you can rappel down buildings, kick through windows, shoot from helicopters, run shoot houses and clearing drills.

A bunch of us at our local club go through these things several times a year. Granted we're not average gun owners obviously but simply showing up once a year to sight in your hunting rifle puts you in the same class as the typical cop who qualifies periodically.

Also, the average civilian generally doesn't train in high-stress situations, which really does prepare someone for an actual confronation in which a firearm must be drawn and possibly used.

Neither does the average cop.

I will add that competitive shooting sports such as IDPA, 3-Gun and USPSA have been on the rise for several years now posting record participation numbers each year so there are more average shooters participating in stress situation shooting than ever before and more each year.

Military might be completely different as I have no experience with that. Police however are nothing special when it comes to shooting. Even the SRT guys fall to non-cops in competition. Which is probably why the nationals and the internationals are exclusively 'real' cops. They don't want to have their scores beat by a bunch of average Joes from the local club.

Each competing team member must be a sworn law enforcement/military/corrections officer and member of the registered agency's response team (SWAT, ERT, SRT, etc.)

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: kruphix


Maybe it was fine and necessary at that time to own and carry around a gun...maybe that is no longer the case.

At the very least, a discussion is necessary.

AS deemed by you?? For actions within the US by a Non-US citizen?

You will have to be more clear, I have no idea what you are asking.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: neo96

I love it when red herrings get brought in to a GUN FIGHT.



As it is some 'justification' for making draconian laws, LOTS of LAWS since the 1934 Gun Control Act to modern day.



That is ALREADY covered with a LAW that says people can't murder another.



So some support making more laws that people are not going to follow.



Because the simple fact. It is IMPOSSIBLE to legislate human behavior.



The only thing LAWS do is punish people after the fact.

Actually, you're misrepresenting my position completely. I'm only pointing out that the Constitution is not an immutable thing, it was always meant to be updated by subsequent generations. People quote the Founders as though they were prophets and the Constitution as though it were a religious scripture.



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.

Can you point out that statement in the Constitution ?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The term 'well regulated militia' meant that the militia should always be free of control from the government. How could it possibly overthrow said government if it was under direct command?

And herein lies the crux of the debate. Is the 2nd Amendment intended to protect a citizen's right to bear arms or the right (in fact, responsibility) of states to maintain militias? In my opinion, the most relevant contextual clue comes from the Articles of Confederation and so again I point to Article 6, paragraph 4:

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

It's clear that it was viewed as the responsibility of the state to maintain militias. Consider also James Madison from The Federalist No. 46:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.

While Madison, who actually wrote the 2nd Amendment, was cognizant of the benefit of an armed public, the real emphasis is placed in the significance of having the state militias to form "a barrier against the enterprises of ambition."

And what was the role of the milita in regards the previous government and its military? Why would this mission suddenly become defunct under a new regime? The charge to the citizens was to overthrow their government if it became tyrannical.

The role of the militia in the colonial era was much the same as after the Revolution — a reserve force, supplemental to the regular army, as it was in The French and Indian War and in various conflicts with natives.

The phrase has nothing to do with a generational interpretation of the Consititution but as an admonishment against abuse of the land:

Specifically that paragraph refers to land ownership but the entirety of the letter addresses intergenerational debt and the underlying premise, that successive generations owe no debt to their predecessors, could be applied to anything, including laws.

a reply to: kruphix

originally posted by: kruphix
Ok, then by that same logic.

Maybe it was fine and necessary at that time to own and carry around a gun...maybe that is no longer the case.

At the very least, a discussion is necessary.

a reply to: DogMeat

Can you point out that statement in the Constitution ?

Really? Let's start with Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

The Framers set forth a process by which the Constitution could be amended because they intended for it to be amendable. The only restriction placed was that no amendment could be made before 1808 that would, "in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article" or (at any point) deprive a state equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Wow!...Seems like an awfully big sermon to waste on the choir, but let me try to reply preacher...

originally posted by: [post=18071329]GoOfYFoOt



The difference is that those in the military who have access to weapons of war, have been trained to use them to kill! Period.



Those in the police forces (S.W.A.T. and similar teams) that have access to the same type of weapons have supposedly been trained to use them in defense, but while committing an offensive act, for the most part.



Civilians do not readily have access to the same types of weapons, but the weapons that we can acquire (after jumping through the same hoops over and over) are used for defense, ONLY!

This is actually not an accurate statement. Civilians DO have access to the same weapons, for the most part, it just takes a lot longer to get licensed to be able to purchase some of them (legally, of course). But, having been in the military, the AR-15 (at the time I was in) on which we trained were pretty much a standard semi-auto 5.56 AR, but had the capability of "burst" (firing three rounds per pull of the trigger). THAT is what most are trained on, or a similar weapon these days. Civilians can purchase these, sans the "burst" setting, at any gun shop.

It's entirely accurate if you actually read the statement. I chose to place the word, "readily" in there, because of the time frame, legworkwork, fees (they call them tax stamps), including legal fees if you decide to establish a trust and permissions required, before you can even apply to own a class 3 weapon, as a civilian. Do the boys and girls in blue have to go through all of that?

Civilians also can purchase weapons for target practice, competition shooting, hunting, etc., so your assertion that they "are used for defense, ONLY" is absurd.

Hmmm..."target practice" can be considered preparing for defense.... "competition shooting" could be performed to defend one's honor or ego or title. "hunting" most definitely is defending against hunger, proactively. Unless you only hunt for sport, then refer to the previous definition for competitve shooting.

Is gun safety and public defense taught along side of accuracy and tactics? How long does this training take? Weeks? Days? Hours? Are they really any different than the hundreds of thousands of civilians who regularly train with their weapons?

Yes and no--law enforcement and military training isn't just a single course, but it spans the course of an entire career. But, the initial training is often shorter than one would expect, but that's because not a lot needs taught--gun safety is easy to teach, as are shooting fundamentals and tactical training. Where the main difference comes in is that these occupations necessitate upkeep and bettering of skills throughout the career, whereas the average civilian, even a well-trained one, does not have access to the same type of training facilities nor the same amount of time with which to hone their skills. Also, the average civilian generally doesn't train in high-stress situations, which really does prepare someone for an actual confronation in which a firearm must be drawn and possibly used.

Please pay attention...I said "civilians who REGULARLY train with their weapons." And, don't fool your self. There are many civilian training facilities available that are quite elaborate and many offer advanced courses utilizing high stressors and "condition red" training. Also, are you familiar with how little "training" is involved with most of law enforcement during their career? I mean, if they haven't experienced an "accidental" discharge or aren't affiliated with any special weapons and tactics team, the actual "requalifying" is insignificant and is simply a test of their status quo. No stress added either, except the self-induced kind...

I'm a better-than-average shot with my carry pistols, but that's at a target, in a controlled environment, without any innocent bystanders or adrenaline coursing through my body. Obviously, real-life situations would hold something different entirely for me physiologically, and that's where military/leo training prepares them where the average civilian is not.

Again, only the elite members of law enforcement are subjected to such rigors... The minority of them, by far!

I propose that those men and women who populate our military and law enforcement, are identical to those men and women who constitute the civilian populace. They have the same dreams. They persue the same goals. They abide by the same laws. Why does the average gun-grabber trust those folks over their neighbor or a stranger who lives in another town? It can't be the training! I can post statistics until my fingers bleed, that prove that they are not trained any better in firearms and weapons defense than the average civilian shooter.

I'd be interested in seeing the statistics, because logic tells me otherwise...and remember, you're saying "the average civilian shooter." And it should be in a real-world situation, not just target-practice accuracy. Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree that civilians are capable of being just as good--like you said, it does all come from within--but without access to the same caliber and frequencey and necessity of the training, you're not going to have the same quality of real-world-scenario shooter (on average).

Again, as I stated, I'm comparing them to the "average civilian SHOOTER". Not average gun owner, but one who shoots and trains and shoots some more.

You really took my statements out of context or just ignored the operative (no pun intended) word, all together.
I happen to have a great deal of respect for ALL who have served; past present and future! And even though, we believe we have the greatest military on earth, they do not have a monopoly on quality training. In fact, many of those I have learned from, came straight out of service, their knowledge not being withheld or rendered exclusive...

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt


This is actually not an accurate statement. Civilians DO have access to the same weapons, for the most part, it just takes a lot longer to get licensed to be able to purchase some of them (legally, of course). But, having been in the military, the AR-15 (at the time I was in) on which we trained were pretty much a standard semi-auto 5.56 AR, but had the capability of "burst" (firing three rounds per pull of the trigger). THAT is what most are trained on, or a similar weapon these days. Civilians can purchase these, sans the "burst" setting, at any gun shop.

I never once saw an AR-15 in the Military, as the AR-15 is a commercial based rifle.

M16s and M4s I believe is what you meant.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

You going to answer the question or just cherry-pick?

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

So, then a landowner can own any Arm, so long as it remains on their land?

Don't know what Jefferson's concept was of arms at the time, but more to the point was that he believed the 2nd Amendment to have limitations and conditions.

That is what my post spoke to...do you plan on addressing that demonstrated fact...or just cherry pick?

a reply to: macman

That statement was made by SlapMonkey at the bottom ofpage 6...
My responses are in red or in a quotebox...

a reply to: Indigo5

Good hell.

You submitted as his limitation was that of Arms on a persons property.

So, then it is the logic statement of ANY Arms are valid, so long as they are on your property. He didn't state nor come close to stating anything about defining what arms.

Your Progressive take on this is basically self-preservation of your argument basis and the use of semantics is pretty common.

"All natural rights may be abridged or modified in their exercise by law." --Thomas Jefferson: Official Opinion, 1790.

originally posted by: [post=18072102]AugustusMasonicus

What Jefferson was referring to was that there are laws governing our gihts as dileneated in the Constitution and that total freedom is akin to anarchy, not that the government can curtail them as they see fit to accomodate the whims of popular sentiment. Only the People can alter the Constitution.

No...He specifically says by their exercise in law. He is not speaking of a constitutional convention, he is speaking of the "exercise in law" of those rights. Administration and enforcement.

In the administration of the 2nd Amendment...Jefferson felt he "right to bare arms" is not a limitless right. It is subject to be "modified" in "exercise by law". With the premise that those limits not contradict the premise of the constitution.

The right to "bare arms" remains intact even when we forbid someone to own a fully automatic M-16 or conduct a reasonable background check.

At the end of the day...the debate is about what the constitution does not say. I am of the mind that our founders, in their wisdom, intended that ambiguity so that the public could continue to have just these kinds of debates.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

You submitted as his limitation was that of Arms on a persons property.

So, then it is the logic statement of ANY Arms are valid, so long as they are on your property. He didn't state nor come close to stating anything about defining what arms.

Not to engage in a basic reading debate...But Jefferson did not state "ANY arms"? Do you think a wordsmith of his caliber simply failed to articulate it properly? See...you are inserting the word "ANY" to further your argument, whilst I simply quoted him.

Not an unusual tactic, but since you purport to be a fan of logic..you must see the hypocrisy?

I often discover folks claim to be constitutional literalists...until they need to tweak some language and definitions to fit their worldview

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

You going to answer the question or just cherry-pick?

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

So, then a landowner can own any Arm, so long as it remains on their land?

Don't know what Jefferson's concept was of arms at the time, but more to the point was that he believed the 2nd Amendment to have limitations and conditions.

That is what my post spoke to...do you plan on addressing that demonstrated fact...or just cherry pick?

Once again I'll need to explain the meaning of the phrase "Well Regulated".

The "regulars" as they were called in the day of the founders, were the paid enlisted soldiers of the military.

They were called regulars because they were required to deliver a regulated rate of fire upon the enemy.

So the "Well Regulated" did not mean the same thing back in the days of the founders drafting of the US constitution.

Only today the liberal mind set is focused on controlling guns that we see this new word view.

Hope that helps...

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

You submitted as his limitation was that of Arms on a persons property.

So, then it is the logic statement of ANY Arms are valid, so long as they are on your property. He didn't state nor come close to stating anything about defining what arms.

Not to engage in a basic reading debate...But Jefferson did not state "ANY arms"? Do you think a wordsmith of his caliber simply failed to articulate it properly? See...you are inserting the word "ANY" to further your argument, whilst I simply quoted him.

Not an unusual tactic, but since you purport to be a fan of logic..you must see the hypocrisy?

I often discover folks claim to be constitutional literalists...until they need to tweak some language and definitions to fit their worldview

Not to stick my nose in here, but IMO, it would be to the contrary... I think that Ol' Tom knew that any accompanying word would be mitigating in nature; whereas the simple word "arms", is basic, fully comprehensible and all-encompassing...

originally posted by: waltwillis

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

You going to answer the question or just cherry-pick?

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

So, then a landowner can own any Arm, so long as it remains on their land?

Don't know what Jefferson's concept was of arms at the time, but more to the point was that he believed the 2nd Amendment to have limitations and conditions.

That is what my post spoke to...do you plan on addressing that demonstrated fact...or just cherry pick?

Once again I'll need to explain the meaning of the phrase "Well Regulated".

The "regulars" as they were called in the day of the founders, were the paid enlisted soldiers of the military.

They were called regulars because they were required to deliver a regulated rate of fire upon the enemy.

So the "Well Regulated" did not mean the same thing back in the days of the founders drafting of the US constitution.

Only today the liberal mind set is focused on controlling guns that we see this new word view.

Hope that helps...

Hmmm...Well forgive me for not taking your word for it...

From 1828...

regulated
REG'ULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.

1828.mshaffer.com...

Also Websters 1828
machaut.uchicago.edu...

Or we can go further back...1792

REGULATE Latin
1 To adjust by rule or method
2 To direct IV seman

REGULATION from regulate I The act of regulating

books.google.com...

1768?

To REGULATE Lat
1 To adjust by rule or method
To direct

REGULATION The act of regulating

books.google.com...=onepage&q&f=false

So....Reality...and actual dictionaries of the time dispute your creative definition which you got from...where again did you come up with it?

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

At least equal. In the minds of the founding fathers standing armies are the worst (go figure). In that vein every town was supposed to be at least as well armed as the army so they could fight to prevent oppression. By the time the distinction between the army and the police are lost (sound familiar?) the police state is an army of occupation and oppression beholden only to the state and the corporations.

The distinction in those days of equality was the cannon. Thats why you find them even today in the town square. Regulations required it. Now a days they are momentos, their position fixed, the barrels plugged with concrete.

Tot ally infringed

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

You submitted as his limitation was that of Arms on a persons property.

So, then it is the logic statement of ANY Arms are valid, so long as they are on your property. He didn't state nor come close to stating anything about defining what arms.

Not to engage in a basic reading debate...But Jefferson did not state "ANY arms"? Do you think a wordsmith of his caliber simply failed to articulate it properly? See...you are inserting the word "ANY" to further your argument, whilst I simply quoted him.

Not an unusual tactic, but since you purport to be a fan of logic..you must see the hypocrisy?

I often discover folks claim to be constitutional literalists...until they need to tweak some language and definitions to fit their worldview

Not to stick my nose in here, but IMO, it would be to the contrary... I think that Ol' Tom knew that any accompanying word would be mitigating in nature; whereas the simple word "arms", is basic, fully comprehensible and all-encompassing...

Fair to imagine such a thing, but at that stage we are delving deep into assuming to know the literary mind and machinations of how Jefferson chose to construct wording. You and I have different opinions...neither able to claim facts at such depth.

a reply to: Indigo5

Agreed. And, it is the same for ALL interpretations of history. Yet, the fact that we can, and do make the attempt to understand/view it in context, gives weight to the debate. (Which is the very reason I frequent this site.)
I believe that we are all charged with the task of expanding our understanding, and whether or not we agree, we should still strive to leave a discussion with more than we had, when we engaged it in the first place.