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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, the founding fathers certainly wanted citizens to be armed with the same armament available to the military.

I believe that if they had the foresight to see a government like Syria's launching airstrikes against its own people, that they would want the American people to be armed with stinger missiles to defend themselves from those planes. Would they want citizens to have nuclear missiles? Well, we could probably have an endless intellectual debate over that.

The fact is that there will soon be legislation introduced that will be the most restrictive we have ever seen. I am very concerned that this legislation will pass. I am also very concerned that with only two new Supreme Court justices, the 2nd Amendment could be reinterpreted as to not be an individual right.
 
I guess they should have been more specific in the wording of the second, or maybe less.
Shoulda put an expiration clause, so when the government becomes trustworthy, we can give up our arms.

Like any law it can be discussed and promoted beforehand, I.e the federalist papers, but it's the final wording that matters. It's kinda like 200+years from now someone saying "Oprah Winfrey meant this."
 
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...

Again, direct from Heller, page 1:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Click to expand...

While the Supreme Court decision DC v Heller didn't settle every 2nd Amendment issue, it settled lots of them. If it did, there's no sense in rehashing them again.
 
The 2a doesn't specify what purpose the arms will be used for. What it does specify is the "right of the people" and "shall not be infringed" leaves nothing to the imagination. It's pretty strong wording.

The constitution and the bill of rights was written to deal with future events. It was intended to span centuries. Without it, this country would have died long ago.
Click to expand...
I like this answer.:)
 
If there's convincing evidence that a significant number of our community believe the 2A is meant to provide the people with the right to keep and bear arms with which to overthrow the government, then efforts to repeal the 2A will be joined by every citizen who doesn't want and doesn't see the need to prepare for civil war. It's that kind of wild-eyed rhetoric that makes the gun community look like a bunch of armed loonies bent on solving all issues with gunfire. Not very many people hate the politics of the people elected to govern enough to contemplate going to war against the National Guard to take down the whole structure of the federal government.

The 2A was created around the existing circumstances at the time the Bill of Rights was written. Prior to the Revolution there weren't enough British army troops in the colonies to adequately defend against the Indians so local citizens (males 16 to 60) banded together and trained in armed organizations that could be called to duty in emergencies - the militia. They were called "Minutemen" because they could leave their fields and shops and be on duty with loaded arms "in a minute" in case of an attack by hostile Indians. They worked with the thinly spread British army troops to protect their communities from such dangers. When dissatisfaction among the colonists began to escalate to rebellion against the English king the militias were the organized armed force that gave the rebellion its teeth and the cooperation between them and the British army turned into confrontation. That's why the British army left Boston for Concord- to disarm the rebellion by capturing or destroying military supplies stored by the Massachusetts militia. But the militia, who at that time were the only armed forces on the side of the rebellion, intervened and the war was on.

The Continental army was formed from a coalition of colonies; they were joined by the colonial militias to fight the British. After the war was won, the Continental army was disbanded, leaving just the militias to protect their communities as they had before the war, but without the support of the British army. That's why the first part of the 2A was written: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…" Having organized, armed militias was the only way to provide and protect the security of communities, there was no other military or armed police in existence. The British had tried to disarm the militias - that effort, at Concord, was the first battle in the Revolutionary war - so it was necessary to protect the right of the people to keep arms for that purpose even though that risked an armed rebellion against the new government. The 2A was written to meet the circumstances and situation at the time it was ratified. The Third Amendment clearly has the same origins, as do all the amendments: directly addressing abuses and injustices the colonists suffered under tyrannical oppressive rule of the distant king of England. The marvel of it all is that these rights of the people above the rights of their government, written to directly address issues in the mid 1700s have lasted nearly 250 years, having been expanded and made applicable to the results of progress and changing times by decisions of the Supreme Court.

I believe that were the Founders faced with the sort of insane carnage we're faced with, they would support actions that would improve the public safety and reduce the risk of madmen with extremely lethal weapons while preserving the rights of peaceful, law-abiding citizens to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
 
A number of people who wrote the Constitution and Bill of rights personally owned weapons capable of killing 30 people in one shot. Given that undeniable fact, I think they probably considered the possibility of someone having that sort of firepower.
 
Uncle Billy said:
If there's convincing evidence that a significant number of our community believe the 2A is meant to provide the people with the right to keep and bear arms with which to overthrow the government, then efforts to repeal the 2A will be joined by every citizen who doesn't want and doesn't see the need to prepare for civil war. It's that kind of wild-eyed rhetoric that makes the gun community look like a bunch of armed loonies bent on solving all issues with gunfire.
Click to expand...

You, like many others, seem to forget history. History, especially the history of the last century, is replete with tyrannical governments. Most all the people, who suffered the abuses of those tyrannical governments, never thought their government would turn on them either.

We have a constitution and we have a process for changing that constitution. Despite a few complainers and the Civil War, its worked so far, without revolution. If the process of Amending the Constitution is followed and our rights are changed, then most people will accept it. As it stands now, despite a few things that are relatively minor, everything is working as designed by the framers.

So, I would whole heartedly agree, that for the current time and the foreseeable future, as long as things are decided constitutionally, any talk of revolt or violent action is silly. However, that does not negate the fact, that things can change and none can say for sure what might happen in the future. I'm not Nostradamus, so I don't know what the world will look like in the future.

I'm 100% certain that all will be aware of when things have tipped past the breaking point. It could be along the lines of the Civil War, by that I mean, there will be some radical change of some form, that will create a constitutional crisis. Or something else entirely, like I said I'm no prognosticator.

What I do know for certain is, the founding fathers intended the people to have the option and the means to resist tyranny. There is no question about that whatsoever.
 
Lets steer this discussion to the here and now.

What constitutional grounds can we argue for arming ourselves in present day?
The conditions in which we find ourselves: protection of oneself and property, hunting and sport.

The tyrannical government argument, however true, won't wash with the antis. The militia argument won't fly either. Flying either one of those flags is not going to help our cause, might as well go turn in the guns now.
 
I don't care what washes with the antis. I care about the truth. Why would I care about antis? They want all guns, we'll they're going to have to amend the constitution then. Go through the process and change the constitution, then you can have my firearms. Other than that forget it.

We aren't trying to win antis over to our side any way where did you get that idea? Also, you better check with the SCOTUS and the writings of the founding fathers. Tyranny of the majority can't take our rights, only a constitutional amendment.
 
Me, I just don't want to be outgunned in any situation against survivalists, anarchists, or criminals. The gun culture in the USA has created a high percentage of over paranoid hoarders by any definition of the phrase. If military style weapons had never been allowed in this country I would be perfectly happy to have a bolt action, shotgun, or a revolver. Could criminals get there hands on military weapons if they had never been allowed? Sure, but they would be few and far between.....no where near what it is today. But that said.......pandora is out of her box......and there ain't no way of putting her back short of a police state. Those who find comfort in military style weapons as a way to fight back against our own military or police if and when some sort of gov't repression tale comes true are in for a rude awakening.
 
I'm not arguing with anyone, but the antis are going to try and get the guns, so I care what they think.

The tyranny argument makes everyone that uses it look like extremists militia nut-cases.

The antis are claiming that 2a is archaic and unnecessary, and y'all are providing evidence to support them.
 
rickyrick said:
I'm not arguing with anyone, but the antis are going to try and get the guns, so I care what they think.

The tyranny argument makes everyone that uses it look like extremists militia nut-cases.

The antis are claiming that 2a is archaic and unnecessary, and y'all are providing evidence to support them.
Click to expand...

Thats your opinion and you're entitled to it, only I'd leave out the invective in the future if I were you. It runs counter to TFL policy on decorum.

The Supreme Court has ruled what the 2nd Amendment is and is not. Those arguing that the second is archaic, unnecessary, etc are in a small minority. To show how wrong and extreme that opinion is, it runs counter to President Obama, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who all three believe the American people have a constitutional right to own firearms for defense. They are on record saying so.

If agreeing with the founding fathers, the Supreme Court and various politicians all known to be for increased restrictions, is being an extremist nut case, then I'm guilty as charged. If its not, then maybe I'm not the one who should rethink his opinions.
 
Again I'm just stating how the public views and reacts to certain statements. Certain things invoke flammatory responses. I've been reading postings and responses all over for weeks. Sorry for the misunderstanding. We are a fairly closed forum here, so we are all in general agreement, at least in spirit of the constitution, court decisions ect. But in public the defense against tyranny doesn't fare so well.

So please understand I'm not attacking anyone here. Just pointing out how the opposition views the argument.
 
The tyrannical government argument, however true, won't wash with the antis. The militia argument won't fly either. Flying either one of those flags is not going to help our cause, might as well go turn in the guns now.
Click to expand...

Go ahead. I'll keep mine.

Never has the militia been called out to overthrow a tyrannical government and I'm not sure one ever has been anywhere.
Click to expand...

Challenge Accepted.

Athens, Tennessee, 1946. Look it up, BlueTrain.

There it is.

Challenge Met.
 
1stmar said:
If its so clear cut then I guess there is nothing to be concerned about? So why all the threads? ALL laws are subject to interpretation, that's why we have a Supreme Court, to adjudicate rulings of lower courts because laws and rulings are subject to interpretation, not just mine but judges and justices.
Click to expand...

Sadly, we have long since lost the ability to definitively interpret plain text. I discovered the phenomenon when I took a literature class in college and the whole premise was that none of the writing was actually endowed by it's author with meaning. It meant what it meant to us individually. I didn't realize at the time that generations had been taught to view the world from that perspective.

Laws should not be subject to interpretation. The question should be one a constitutionality. Laws should be clearly and concisely written. Should be, I say. I fully realize that they're not.

The 2A is not a "law" either. It is the standard by which laws are judged. It is one sentence. It is not vague or conditional. It is not open to interpretation. The SCOTUS has now definitively concluded, not that it should take such a decision, that the prefatory clause is not and never has been the singular purpose. Well, says I, DUH! Common sense. Never has been, never should have been, is not the only purpose.

Just like my example with the cookies. It doesn't have to include every possible scenario to be all inclusive. The meaning is clear.

The cookies are mine and you keep your paws off. I'll do with them as I please.

So, if the prefatory clause is not the only purpose, then the clause that matters, the defining statement is:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

How much clearer could it be?

Now, here is where I might diverge from some other folks, because I do not believe that the relatively modern doctrine of Incorporation is actually correct.

The states have their own constitutions. If the COTUS was meant to apply to the states it would be all we needed. It wasn't and isn't meant to apply to the states.

Court battles over states laws should be fought based on the state constitution. Virtually every state (if not every) has their own version of the 2A either in the text proper of the document or in it's own version of a Bill of Rights.

We'd solve a lot of problems is we got just a couple of concepts right.

In this instance, the application is simple. The 2A applies to National level gun laws. The 2A is an "inalienable right". Inalienable rights can only be infringed under very specific, very restricted circumstances. Almost all, and certainly all existing, gun laws are unconstitutional on a National level.
 
I'm keeping mine too, Jimbob. Lol, I was just expressing frustration a little.:D calmed down now.

Again not meant against members of this forum.


I looked up Athens Tennessee 1946, extremely interesting, thanks for sharing.
 
Now, here is where I might diverge from some other folks, because I do not believe that the relatively modern doctrine of Incorporation is actually correct.
Click to expand...
Do you disagree with Black's doctrine of Incorporation, or with the idea that the BoR applies to the states?
 
I for one do not care to be bound by what they decided well over 200 years ago no more than I wish to be bound by things written 3,000 years ago, even though such things were thought to be very, very important.
Click to expand...
-Bluetrain

Ah, but the Constitution does not bind YOU, my friend: It states what the Federal Government can do, and the Bill of Rights specificly prohibits things that it CAN NOT DO TO YOU!

If you find that you can not live in a country where others are protected from the .gov by these provisions .... well, there are other countries without such protections .... there is no fence keeping you here.
 
Last edited:
Someone mentioned it, here's the Texas version of Rkba

SEC. 23. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power by law to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.
Click to expand...



SEC. 29. To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this "Bill of Rights" is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top