Do you think our forefathers had current guns in mind when writing the 2nd Amendment?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you think about it, firearms evolved tremendously from the writing of the 2nd amendment through the end of the civil war. Yet, I know of no mention or proposal of "gun control - disarming the citizens" following the civil war.
Click to expand...

The first gun control laws were written to prohibit slaves, and later, "freedmen" from owning firearms. The "freedmen" prohibitions were written after the Civil War ...... if you don't know about them, you have not looked very hard.
 
There were laws in some Georgia counties, mine being one, that prohibited pistols other than Colt or Remington revovlers.

The county archivist explained this to me in that those were expensive, high tickets items back then that no freedmen nor sharecropper could afford.

Haves and have nots again.
 
What they had in mind was ensuring that the government and its minions didn't have sole access to the means of coercive force.
Click to expand...
Exactly the wording I was looking for. Our own Marko Kloos wrote an excellent essay on the matter called Why the Gun Is Civilization that is well worth reading on the matter.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
Click to expand...

This applies not only to interactions between individuals, but to interactions between individuals and the state.
 
federalist papers

some of the principals in drafting our constitution spoke their minds long ago.
The Federalist papers.
I believe in original intention. Is common now in Con Law circles to speak of a "living document"..all this means is that the constitution says what we say it says. Thus it means nothing, but is a thing of putty to be modified by men in power to suit themselves..OR it is a superstructure...a steel frame upon which all else is hung. I believe it was and is the latter..a document of steel
and that our founder's knew well what is was to be at the mercy of armed power and intended their grandchildren to be and remain free. The 2nd amendment is not about deer hunting or target practice and I do not see how any rational person could think otherwise. The brown bess WAS the assault rifle of its age!
"Shall we ever for a moment or in the least degree
surrender our conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then?"
this question of Thoreau goes to the heart of it. While we may submit to the government in many areas...there is a point at which it is legitimate, human,
and right for a free people to say I will not. Our founders stood on their I will Not..the issue for us is will we?
 
I have heard the argument from both pro and anti gunners that civilians would be "no match" for the mighty US military. I try to avoid mall ninja-type conversations, in general. But I think it's easy to say that, because our military has many advantages over civilians, that somehow that translates into a hopeless defeat.

It would be wildly unlikely that there would somehow be a war between the US military and it's civilian population. But...(Coach dons his mall ninja hat) Say the president passed an executive order that banned all firearms and required the confiscation of all privately owned firearms, and the military faithfully obeyed this order to a man. Short of levelling every city and town, I doubt very much they could disarm Texas, let alone the entire country. Not before they either ran out of people, or ran out of will. Think of the logistics! Plenty of people would hand over their firearms, no doubt. But many wont. So it would be urban warfare, house to house...apartment to apartment... tens of thousands of barricaded, armed individuals. Ask a person who has actually been in combat if they thought the military could forcefully disarm the entire US population. They would laugh at you.
 
Ask a person who has actually been in combat if they thought the military could forcefully disarm the entire US population. They would laugh at you.
Click to expand...

Laughin' over here, Boss!

Short of chem/nuke/bio weapon use, they could not defeat a determined US population, and they'd have to kill them to do that. There's just are not that many in uniform these days.
 
Literally every single friend I have that is ROTC, Army, Navy, National Guard, or Veteran shares my views as strongly as I do.

Might be different for others, may be entirely different. Just my personal experience.
 
I was in the army and I would say no I wouldn't have followed that order, but I probably would have, begrudgingly have you, if under orders.

I reviewed Katrina videos this weekend, and yes, the troops forcibly disarmed civilians. They kicked in doors and the whole nine yards. They weren't happy about it, but they did it all the same. They did wealthy and poor neighborhoods.

In the same turn, I wouldn't get into a battle with US troops or law enforcement under orders either.
 
I was in and around New Orleans post Katrina as newly minted 18 year old PFC, but I didn't here about the confisication debacle until way later. Like years later.

I love the Army, and I love being a Soldier, but I don't think anything would have me rip off my American flag patch and walk away in discuss so quick as an unlawful order like that.

(And maybe slap on a Gadsen flag patch and run about shouting Wolverines)
 
I am sure they would have approved of whatever type of weapon required to address the problem. They were quite clear though on addressing the problem. Defeating an armed populace is always going to be hideously expensive. We didn't really "defeat" the British, they gave up and left. If you can't beat them make it cost them dearly. The Russians learned this in Afghanistan and we learned it in Vietnam. It is the reason why guerilla warfare works as well as it does.
 
Last edited:
I didn't hear about it until like a year or two later when Texas passed laws prohibiting disarming of civilians during emergencies.

Texas has gone a long way in recent years to better the RKBA, I'm curious how this is going to conflict with new federal restrictions. Texas constitutional RKBA is even clearer on the matter than the us 2a
 
Last edited:
Literally every single friend I have that is ROTC, Army, Navy, National Guard, or Veteran shares my views as strongly as I do.
Click to expand...

And literally every single one of Pauline Kael's friends voted against Richard Nixon.

I retired 12 years ago, and things have changed in the Army a lot since then, but I wold not then nor would I now swear that no one would obey such orders.
There would probably be a lot of "monkey wrenching" going on, pretending to follow the orders while actually coming back and saying "Sorry, sir, no one home..."
But I have little faith in the officer corps, and many senior NCOs*, not to say "Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full sir" and order the untermenshcen loaded into the cattle cars. For the children.


*Being made company First Sergeant while a Sergeant First Class was a real eye-opener, ruined my impression of Sergeants Major, and settled the question of whether I would stay as long as Uncle let me or retire at 20. 20 it was...
I hate to disillusion any of you who ares till serving.
 
I've been out a good long while, and I am quite sure that some of the guys I served with would have saluted and said "Three Bags, FULL!", kicked in the doors and said "Give it up!"


I also am pretty sure that some of the guys I served with would have fragged their NCO's and Officers, if they had ever had access to grenades ....
 
While defeating an armed populace may be difficult, the British were not beaten by guerrila warfare by a population armed with Kentucky rifles. They were beaten using old-world battlefield tactics by men trained in methods laid down by a Prussian and armed mostly with smoothbore muskets. We also had a little help on the side by the French, who, and not for the last time, kindly donated a few weapons to tide us over.

For those of you who were in the army x-number of years ago, you shouldn't imagine that the way it was when you were in was the way it always was or the way it always would be. For a few cases of the army being used against civilians, read about the bonus marchers in Washington when McArthur was chief of staff or even earlier when suffragettes came to town.

I'm not saying what's right or wrong (who am I to say?) but just pointing out a few footnotes of history.
 
Horsefeathers.

While defeating an armed populace may be difficult, the British were not beaten by guerrila warfare by a population armed with Kentucky rifles. They were beaten using old-world battlefield tactics by men trained in methods laid down by a Prussian and armed mostly with smoothbore muskets. We also had a little help on the side by the French, who, and not for the last time, kindly donated a few weapons to tide us over.
Click to expand...

Horsefeathers. Had Burgoyne been allowed to advance from Ticonderoga to Albany uncontested and in the strength he left there with in July of 1777, he'd have smashed Schuyler's Army (smaller in July than his by 1,000 regulars) to flinders, long before Bemis Heights could be fortified, and long before the Militia successes at Stanwix/Oriskany in August, and before the Jane Mcrea incident at the end of July. During the whole of the campaign, Burgoyne was hampered by poor communication with Howe in New York (his messengers repeatedly caught and hanged by rebel irregulars), and his strength frittered away by small battles that delayed him and by the desertion of most of his Indian allies ......

...... Meanwhile, Gates' army swelled to twice it's size with nearly every militia member in a month's walking distance, and Morgan's Rifles' and other units of the Northern Department's arrival at the end of August ..... without the efforts of militia units like the Tryon County Militia, Starks' Green mountain Boys, and countless other irregulars, there would have been no Hubbardton, no Bennington, no Oriskany, no Freeman's Farm, no Bemis Heights ...... just two more defeats (Stanwix and Albany) of Continental Regulars by Brittish Regulars and their Loyalist and Indian allies ..... and without those victories, there would have been no French support..... no French Fleet at Yorktown.... no victory, no United States......
 
BT, while I am enjoying jimbob86's history lesson (which seems about right to me across the board), I notice that you still have been unable to list any expansions of federal power of which you do not approve...
 
Forgive the History lesson- besides growing up with a History teacher for a mother, I had to write a college level term paper on the Battles of Saratoga/Burgoyne Campaign of 1777 ....... I LOVE Military History.


Granted, the defeat at Camden was in part due to failure of militia (but mostly due to Gates' poor tactics- he was a **** poor combat leader, and it would have been better for all concerned had Benedict Arnold killed him in duel sparked by a charge of cowardice after Saratoga, IMO) ..... Gen'l Daniel Morgan manged to use milita very effectively 6 months later at Cowpens .....
 
Last edited:
Yeah, my maternal uncle, after leaving Army active duty following his tour in 'Nam, became a history teacher. He spent several summer vacations from his public school job, mobilizing for the Army Reserve, to teach military history (at Fort Dix, IIRC). My mother was also a history teacher, so road trips when I was a kid often involved visits to places like Bunker Hill, Yorktown, Gettysburg, Appomattox, Mystic, the USS CONSTITUTION... You get the idea.
 
Not just guns, but weapons in general.

Arms means weapons. Firearms means guns.

My interpretation is that they intended for us to keep weapons of any and all varieties, and the right to bear those weapons means we are allowed to carry them with us, and use them if necessary. at least it should.
 
My interpretation is that they intended for us to keep weapons of any and all varieties, and the right to bear those weapons means we are allowed to carry them with us, and use them if necessary. at least it should.
Click to expand...

Google Tench Coxe, and click the hit that takes you to his page on Wikiquotes.

Something about "all the terrible implements of the soldier ..."

You'll find it. I keep posting it, then I forget which threads I cited it in. (Age does that to you.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top