Do you think our forefathers had current guns in mind when writing the 2nd Amendment?
- Thread starter jasmith85
- Start date
- Status
Double Naught Spy
New member
This, of course, post dated the Bill of Rights and the 2nd amendment of 1791 with the two militia acts of 1792 (OMG, imposing regulations on the 2A!) which were made permanent in 1795 (because of expiration), but then amended in 1862, and finally replaced by the Militia Act of 1903 that set up the National Guard.
Buffalo444
New member
In every version of the 2nd amendment there is punctuation between those clauses. They didnt see need for redundancy, the need for a well regulated militia and the right for people to keep and bear arms are two important, but different, things.
Common sense dictates a militia is armed, no need to repeat it.
sent from the rust monster
Buffalo444
New member
Militia groups across the nation continue to do this voluntarily.
sent from the rust monster
Buffalo444
New member
No, I don't think for the most part that the founding fathers thought about the weapons generally owned by civilians today when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.
Since at the time, private individuals could own ships of the line and canon and any ordinance they could shoot. I think the founding fathers were more likely thinking of privately owned artillery, mortars, crew served machine guns, and machine guns - as well as the standard issue military infantry arms.
Since at the time, private individuals could own ships of the line and canon and any ordinance they could shoot. I think the founding fathers were more likely thinking of privately owned artillery, mortars, crew served machine guns, and machine guns - as well as the standard issue military infantry arms.
1stmar said:
I was for over 20 years, and I don't know that I've been released from my oath, simply retired.
However, a current reading of history leads us to ask when the last time a true citizens militia formed to protect life and property? Anyone??? Bueller???
Hurricane Katrina. 2005. Citizens in New Orleans, LA and surrounding areas, faced with loss of power and unable to depend on assistance, formed citizens militias to protect property in neighborhoods. They pooled arms, set up patrol rosters, inventoried ammunition, maintained guards at entrances and roads and maintained those preparations until the civil authorities could resume critical civic functions.
That is what the militia is for, and it's the latest example I know of, where the local population came together as a militia to protect property and lives. It's a classic example of the 2nd Amendment in action, and this happened just a little over seven years ago.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
1stmar said:
Your personal opinion is open to interpretation. The historical, literal, common sense and SCOTUS views are not open to interpretation. They are crystal clear.
The point I made in my first post is also crystal clear from a historical, literal, grammatical, common sense perspective. The COTUS is an agreement between the people and the government that exists at their consent by their creation. The people are to be free from National government interference except for the matters explicitly spelled out in the COTUS. All other regulation is from the various states ONLY.
It's unmistakable. The National government has only specific powers. One power that is SPECIFICALLY denied them is to disarm the people. It is not only NOT an enumerated power, it is not even left open to interpretation. It is specifically denied them. Specifically denied. Not just vaguely "...not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,...", which should be enough on it's own merit, it is further specifically DENIED to the National government by being codified in the 2A.
I don't know how it could be any more clear.
If you were baby sitting my children and I left a note that said "Being that the cookies are purchased for my children, the babysitter may not take them home."
Would you be like, "Well, I know that SOME of those cookies weren't actually bought for the children. The neighbor brought them over for Christmas. I guess THOSE cookies I, the babysitter, can take home."
Of course you wouldn't say that.
They're MY cookies. Just because I gave you ONE reason why I have them, would you demand that it was the ONLY reason? If I decided to give some to friends, would you be like "Hey! You said those were for your children and I couldn't have them!" They're MY cookies. You have no say!
The cookies being used for the nourishment of the children; the babysitter shall not take them home.
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.
No interpretation. Common sense use of grammar and the unwritten implications that we all use every day.
It only gets dicey when we don't like the obvious meaning and WANT to go looking for something we DO like.
Buffalo444
New member
Kreyzhorse
New member
I don't believe that they had the internet in mind either but I don't believe they would have placed restrictions on speech because of it.
I feel exactly the same way regarding firearms.
I feel exactly the same way regarding firearms.
Double Naught Spy
New member
It doesn't matter what I think they meant. What does matter is that they had to codify it in law which has since been replaced.
This article from Red State web site covers the topic well enough. The quote is from the comment section below the article:
"To a person in the 18th century,"regulate" meant "to bring order, method, or uniformity to" - see definition 2 in Webster's: http://www.merriam-webster.com.... It's the same meaning used in phrases like "regular infantry", and has everything to do with training, discipline, and practice. In fact, if our founding fathers were writing the 2nd amendment today, they might very well have written "well-trained". It's the difference between having a mob running around barely knowing which end of a gun is the dangerous one, and a group knowing how to aim and shoot accurately, care for their weapons, and coordinate together with others. Every time you see the word "regulated" in the writings of our founding fathers about guns, try substituting the word "trained", and I believe a lot of their writings make a whole lot more sense. For example, the connection between a "well-regulated" militia and the security of a free state makes a lot more sense if you understand "well-regulated" to mean "well-trained"."
http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/26/gun-control-gun-rights-gun-politics-and-newtown-part-i-of-ii/
"To a person in the 18th century,"regulate" meant "to bring order, method, or uniformity to" - see definition 2 in Webster's: http://www.merriam-webster.com.... It's the same meaning used in phrases like "regular infantry", and has everything to do with training, discipline, and practice. In fact, if our founding fathers were writing the 2nd amendment today, they might very well have written "well-trained". It's the difference between having a mob running around barely knowing which end of a gun is the dangerous one, and a group knowing how to aim and shoot accurately, care for their weapons, and coordinate together with others. Every time you see the word "regulated" in the writings of our founding fathers about guns, try substituting the word "trained", and I believe a lot of their writings make a whole lot more sense. For example, the connection between a "well-regulated" militia and the security of a free state makes a lot more sense if you understand "well-regulated" to mean "well-trained"."
http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/26/gun-control-gun-rights-gun-politics-and-newtown-part-i-of-ii/
Come and take it.
New member
They mentioned arms because guns weren't the only weapons. Partisan's and pikes may have still been seen on the battlefield. The sabre was widespread especially among cavalry which brings me to the point of mass killing.
A cavalry man had a horse which could carry a little more than the average foot soldier. They could be armed with at least two pistols and than a sabre. Usually cavalry were used at that time when an enemy force was either fleeing or wavering on the point of breaking. So a cavalry man would be able to discharge at least two pistols and than bring out the sabre. Other cavalry still used the lance followed up by a sabre.
I am sure some of the kill numbers a few of these cavalrymen racked up running down a beaten foe would definitely qualify as a mass killing.
load outs varied over the eons. I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't times you would have found one armed with a blunderbuss backed up by four pistols.
My history is probably not precise but the point is that mass killings were nothing new at the time the 2nd amendment was written. That the technology of the time certianly enabled a person to kill a lot of unarmed people.
A cavalry man had a horse which could carry a little more than the average foot soldier. They could be armed with at least two pistols and than a sabre. Usually cavalry were used at that time when an enemy force was either fleeing or wavering on the point of breaking. So a cavalry man would be able to discharge at least two pistols and than bring out the sabre. Other cavalry still used the lance followed up by a sabre.
I am sure some of the kill numbers a few of these cavalrymen racked up running down a beaten foe would definitely qualify as a mass killing.
load outs varied over the eons. I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't times you would have found one armed with a blunderbuss backed up by four pistols.
My history is probably not precise but the point is that mass killings were nothing new at the time the 2nd amendment was written. That the technology of the time certianly enabled a person to kill a lot of unarmed people.
- Status