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

Status
Not open for further replies.
^^ I believe that was the intent of the question. Since they believed in an armed militia it would be logical to believe they would have supported/intended it to include the most current and effective weapons
 
Naw, you're still getting it wrong: the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to put down rebellion, certainly not to enable rebellion.

Anyway, it's a good question. I already stated somewhere that it makes no difference. I doubt they were thinking of weapons so much anyway. They were in very short supply during the revolution, which suggests that the colonists many not have been as well armed as we like to think they were. The colonies themselves had supplies of arms specifically for the purpose of arming the militia. Apparently expecting individuals to arm and equip themselves, even though it was put in the law, was a little too much for some of them.

Using the word patriot is seizing the moral high ground, isn't it? Not everyone wanted to separate themselves from the mother country and after the revolution, people like that, called by the quaint term loyalists, were in for a hard time in some places. That's usually the way it is when there's an armed revolution or civil war.
 
I don't believe they were thinking about what type of arm the individual owned.
What they were thinking about was that a standing army was both expensive and a threat to the power of the various states.
 
I think it's a fake argument.

They didn't predict the internet or the cell phone or the TV set, but they believed that citizens should have the right to speak their opinion and publish the news.

They believed the citizens have the right to be armed for the protection of themselves and their community, which means keeping up with the weapons of the potential attackers.
 
The 1st Amendment is about the right of the people to petition their government; it's bigger than that, but that's the central ideal. The 2nd Amendment is about making the government listen to those petitions. Try reading them together like a paragraph instead of just #1 and #2 on a list.
 
Each of the colonies needed private citizens to be armed and available for defense (the militia) because there weren't enough British army troops to adequately defend the citizenry against hostile Indians. That's where the argument comes from that the 2A applies to the National Guard and Reserve. These militia joined the Continental army which was formed to fight the Revolution, after which the Continental army was disbanded and the militia - the "Minutemen"- were all the nation had in the way of land-based military capabilities to provide defense against hostile Indians. Everyday citizens (all fit males between 16 and 60) engaged in a variety of professions would be called to military duty in the event of an emergency, bringing their personal firearms. That's why the first part of the 2A reads like it does. About 2 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified the Congress formed a standing Federal army in order to provide better defense of the citizenry against the Indians, a role the British army of course wasn't going to fill any longer.

In those days some of the guns used for hunting, which just about every household did, were not all that different from the ones the military used. The civilians had smooth bore shotguns which were very close to the Charleville muskets they got from the French and Brown Bess muskets from the Brits. The civilians also had smaller bore "Kentucky" rifles that were much more accurate that they hunted with; these and the smooth bores were what the militia would bring with them when they were called to duty- their personal firearms.
 
Too many people misunderstand the purpose of the COTUS. It is intended to preserve the rights of the people and to SPECIFICALLY delegate SOME of THEIR power to the government. The whole point is FREEDOM. Some things were foreseen as likely ways that the government would abuse the power GIVEN to it by TAKING powers RESERVED (reserved, that means belonging to and kept) to the people.

The type of weapons is irrelevant. The issue is one of a particular freedom that had been stolen before and was feared to be stolen again.

The most important line in the COTUS is:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The current state of affairs is sadly far removed from the intention. The National government was supposed to do what is directly spelled out in the COTUS. DIRECTLY spelled out. It is specifically NOT supposed to do those things specifically spelled out.

Everything else. EVERYTHING ELSE is reserved to the people or to the states.

Specifically in regards to firearms, the COTUS is clear that the issue of firearms is OFF THE TABLE. There should be NO National level prohibition regarding firearms. NONE.
 
I don't think it's as much of a stretch from a Brown Bess Musket to an M-16 as it is from a printing press to radio and television. The former is a logical advance of technology, while the latter would be sheer magic to an 18th Century intellectual.

Be that as it may, the "assault weapon" of the late 18th Century was the Brown Bess or Charleville Musket. It wasn't particularly useful for hunting, although it would serve in a pinch. It had two virtues: It could be loaded and fired rapidly, and it could mount a bayonet. As has been noted, that's exactly the type of "arms" our forefathers intended us to "keep and bear.":cool:
 
Yes....
As I read the constitution I believe that they were aware of the future.

I have seen numerous quotes from Thomas Jefferson about individual gun ownership.

Shall not be infringed, tells me that they foresaw government attempting to take those rights.
 
The founding fathers thought that the citizen should be armed as well as a rifleman in King George's army (or the government, ie potential tyrant). Back in the 1780s, that meant a muzzleloader. Today, that means a semi-automatic with a large capacity magazine, aka the dreaded 'assault rifle'.
 
The militia was required to have a musket, ball, powder and a bayonet equivalent to that used for military service and to drill with same. The rationale that the people would be armed with the same arms as a regular army troop means that what they had they not only could have but should have.

Off the top of my head I am thinking that was the second militia act of 1792 but don't take my old memory's word for it.
 
That's like asking if free speech applies to TV or the Internet... or that freedom of Religion to any other religions besides Christianity.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

The way citizens arm themselves is commensurate to the way our government is armed and as well as our enemies abroad.
 
Old Grump said:
The militia was required to have a musket, ball, powder and a bayonet equivalent to that used for military service and to drill with same. The rationale that the people would be armed with the same arms as a regular army troop means that what they had they not only could have but should have.

Off the top of my head I am thinking that was the second militia act of 1792 but don't take my old memory's word for it.
Click to expand...

I think they had weaponry on par with military technology at the time. I dont think that changed. I believe the wanted us to be able to defend ourselves from al enemies, foreign and domestic, with the best means possible. I think they would still think so today. And be rightly appalled at our current situation.

sent from the rust monster
 
The key here is "well regulated militia", while I believe they would have expected/required/desired the militia to have equivalent arms, they also had an expectation that the militia was regulated, not simply citizens with arms. I believe that is where the 2nd amendment is weak as it pertains to civilian privileges of arms, and subsequently is at risk.
 
The key ISN'T "well regulated militia". That clause has always been understood by common sense, history and now codified by the SCOTUS to be only a single example, not an exclusive purpose.
 
1stmar said:
The key here is "well regulated militia", while I believe they would have expected/required/desired the militia to have equivalent arms, they also had an expectation that the militia was regulated, not simply citizens with arms. I believe that is where the 2nd amendment is weak as it pertains to civilian privileges of arms, and subsequently is at risk.
Click to expand...

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" doesnt spell out civilian privileges? The people are the citizens. Thats a fact.

sent from the rust monster
 
Now what would it take for the NRA to become a "regulating" body? The definition of "well regulated" is certainly loose. If the NRA was smart perhaps being a member could be enough to constitute regulation with some small level of administration.
 
1stmar said:
they also had an expectation that the militia was regulated, not simply citizens with arms.
Click to expand...

Yes, something -maybe a sense of community- was lost when militia meetings ceased. However, I somehow doubt that the more pacifist members of society would be thrilled by reviving periodic mandatory militia meetings that would involve practicing marksmanship, learning to maintain arms, or any of the other attributes of a well regulated militia.
 
Brian, that is open to interpretation. It's vague at best. You and I can read it however we see fit, but what matters is how the Supreme Court sees it, and that body is moving left.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top