Throwing it their face

Status
Not open for further replies.
"In fact in at least cursory web research it seems quite difficult if not imposible to find even a suggestion that regulations of firearms was an accepted idea. (by the founders)."


Many colonies/states and communities had a few laws regulating the possession and carrying of firearms.

In Massachusetts I believe it was illegal to carry a firearm into a house of worship as early as 1800, well within the lifespan of the Framers. Oddly enough, in the early days of the colonies, many had laws specifically REQUIRING those attending church to be armed.

But, in either case, wouldn't requiring either be an infringement? Or are you being infringed upon only when you're told you can't do something, as opposed to being told you must do something?

It was also illegal in many colonies to sell or give firearms to slaves or indians, laws that carried right thorough to the United States. Seems like a violation not only of free choice but also RKBA. But, then again, slaves and indians weren't very human, or so the thinking went.

Obviously, most of the EARLY colonial laws required that colonists be armed and maintain stocks of powder and bullets along with the guns, all of this as a defense against indian attacks. As the threat of indian attack faded, however, these laws grew considerably laxer.

Another obvious "infringement" occurred in the town of Boston when indiscreet discharge of firearms was made illegal in 1714. What the hell is the point of having a gun if you can't shoot at whatever you want?

Clayton Cramer has a discussion on early firearms regulations in America here:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/GunControlColonialNewEngland.PDF
 
I think one point that is consistently being ignored here is that the chief purpose of the 2nd admendment was to enable the citizens to form a militia. And it was clearly the intent of at least some of the founding fathers that the militia was not to be construed to be private armies. There was no intention, I believe, to construct a mechanism for rebellion, though it happens that it eventually turned out that way. The Civil War was largely fought by state forces. The other Civil War, the one in England, was in their case the starting point for gun control in that country. At any rate, there was almost universal distrust of standing armies in this country, partially because of some of the also universal military practices in the 18th century, one of which was the quartering of soldiers in private homes. That was even mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, so it must have bothered people.

However, like a few other things in the Constitution, it was found that some things just didn't work out in practice and you needed at least a small standing army. It got a workout right away, too, pushing the Indians a little further west, after which "the country was flooded with land speculators."
 
Does the second admendment say that it is or should be an unregulated right? This seems to be the critical difference is the various viewpoints concerning this particular admendment. Some seem to believe that it means there can be no regulations whatsoever about arms, other seem to tie it to some quaint notion of a militia.
Click to expand...

History is only my minor (current college student).. but it captures my interests more than my major (physics). I find myself reading more history text than physics texts. What most people don't know when they argue over the Founding Fathers' intentions in the documents which form the basis of our country is that most of them are made explicit in the Federalist Papers.

Try Googling Federalist Paper 46. Madison states that so long as the population of American INDIVIDUALS are armed, no militant government coup will be capable of changing the status quo by force.

Also, he says that "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."
 
BlueTrain said:
There was no intention, I believe, to construct a mechanism for rebellion, though it happens that it eventually turned out that way.
Click to expand...
That is entirely opposite to my understanding. Many of the Founders fully intended that the militia(s) be armed because they had no trust of standing armies, and they wanted the people to be able to rise up against the government if the government became excessively tyrannical. The 2nd Amendment was very much intended to provide a mechanism for rebellion.
 
"they wanted the people to be able to rise up against the government if the government became excessively tyrannical."

And yet, in the US code, those very same men made it illegal to... rise up against the government...
 
Mike Irwin said:
"they wanted the people to be able to rise up against the government if the government became excessively tyrannical."

And yet, in the US code, those very same men made it illegal to... rise up against the government...
Click to expand...
True. Makes for a fascinating paradox, doesn't it?

I suppose the logic would have to be along the lines of "If the government is SO bad that we have to take up arms to (again) throw it out, it isn't the legitimate government any longer so it's okay." Of course, that logic succeeds only if the rebellion succeeds.
 
I think one point that is consistently being ignored here is that the chief purpose of the 2nd admendment was to enable the citizens to form a militia.
Click to expand...

Not quite--it was for the STATES to be able to form a militia. The people had the guns, but the states had the official stamp. You might be able to get 50 guys together and call them a militia, but they don't have any legal standing any more than guys patrolling the street corner are necessarily police.

And it was clearly the intent of at least some of the founding fathers that the militia was not to be construed to be private armies. There was no intention, I believe, to construct a mechanism for rebellion, though it happens that it eventually turned out that way.
Click to expand...

This is an important distinction to make. It clearly was not their intention to create a "Overthrow the government button" that anyone could push. If you grant the idea that you can go to war against the government because you disagree with who's in power, or if you feel you're being "oppressed," then we'd never have peace--we'd be like India, where there's always some kind of rebel group planning to bomb a train or a government center.

It WAS however intended that the states themselves and the citizens thereof would be able, if it became necessary, to resist a coup or criminal seizure of power. Think the Business Plot to replace FDR.

And yet, in the US code, those very same men made it illegal to... rise up against the government...
Click to expand...

Precisely.

Last but not least, we can't forget another major reason for the Second Amendment, which was national defense. The US couldn't afford a large standing army. If it came to war--and it did several times--then they would be relying on citizen soldiers to bolster a small professional force.
 
"A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as "our rebellion." It is only in the third person - "their rebellion" - that it becomes illegal."

Ben Franklin in the musical 1776.


"True. Makes for a fascinating paradox, doesn't it?"

Oddly enough, no, not really.

The Framers, at least the Federalists, were sure that they were setting up a government that could never become tyrannical in the manner as an autocratic or despotic monarchy. Rebellion would no longer be necessary.

It was the Anti-Federalist wing that had to be courted with inclusion of the Bill of Rights; the Anti Federalists were not at all sure that the checks and balances provided by the Constitution could effectively prevent a tyrannical government from seizing power, so the inclusion of a safety valve - the Second Amendment - was demanded along with enumeration of other fundamental rights.
 
Mike Irwin said:
The Framers, at least the Federalists, were sure that they were setting up a government that could never become tyrannical in the manner as an autocratic or despotic monarchy. Rebellion would no longer be necessary.

It was the Anti-Federalist wing that had to be courted with inclusion of the Bill of Rights; the Anti Federalists were not at all sure that the checks and balances provided by the Constitution could effectively prevent a tyrannical government from seizing power, so the inclusion of a safety valve - the Second Amendment - was demanded along with enumeration of other fundamental rights.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting perspective. Being a descendant of one of the Federalists, I guess it's not surprising I've missed that.

Sorta looks like the Anti-Federalists were right, doesn't it?
 
My wife is a direct decendent of George Mason and I have teased her about his writings about the militia. As you may know, he refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked the Bill of Rights. She's also a direct decendent of General Samuel Cooper, Adjutant General of the Confederacy (but was from New York), who married George Mason's granddaughter. I have been married 31 years and still don't have it all straight but then, I'm decended from a long line of nobodies from Southwest Virginia.

It is ironic to speak of "the government seizing power," isn't it? Sometimes I think we are so worried about the federal government that we forget all the other layers of government, hardly any of which are any better. In any event, one thing the framers wanted for sure was a stronger federal government, since the previous one had worked so poorly. But I think it would have been very interesting if the vice-president continued to be the person in the presidential election who received the second highest number of votes.
 
Sounds like something that's worth a try as a short term fix while liberals are in power.

But bottom line, the solution to these problems is political and will be resolved at the polls, not through legal sophistry. We have to win hearts and minds, not neccesarily for gun rights, but for a generally conservative government. That will in turn result in a generally conservative Supreme Court which will, in turn, result in the restoration and protection of Second Admendment rights.
 
"Sorta looks like the Anti-Federalists were right, doesn't it?"

Oh yes, our Government is so crushingly tyrannical that it's not even funny.

All of this crying and moaning on the internet at various sites about how the US government is the most tyrannical ever seen on the face of the earth and that we should rise up and overthrow it immediately really pisses me off at times.

I'm good friends with a couple of people who grew up in Nazi Germany, including one Jew who survived TRUE government tyranny - a trip to a Nazi slave labor/death camp.

I also work with a number of people who grew up in the old Soviet Union, China, North Vietnam and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.

The stories all could tell are pretty startling, and make those who scream about "US Government Tyranny" look like complete mouth breathers.

Is the US method of government perfect?

No.

But, would any of you care to trade places with any of my coworkers?

You would? OK, guess what, you're going to Cambodia in the mid to late 1970s. And guess what, you're very likely to be considered an intellectual, which means, if you're VERY lucky, a quick and relatively painless death.

If you're NOT lucky, and most were not at all lucky, you'll either die from malnutrition, or you'll be tortured mercilessly in Tuol Sleng before you're taken to the killing fields for a hoe upside the head.

Anyone REALLY want to cry and moan about how tyrannical our popularly elected Representative Republic is now?
 
Did I miss something? Was someone calling for the violent overthrow of the American government? I certainly wasn't. I served my country, absolutely un-heroically, and as far back to the rear as I could manage, but enough to have an Honorable Discharge and a NDSM (watchfire) ribbon.

Bitching and complaining is the right of every American citizen.
 
No, DG, my cup runneth over this morning, so to speak.

Note that I was talking generally about people on the internet, not specifically about posts in this thread.
 
But bottom line, the solution to these problems is political and will be resolved at the polls, not through legal sophistry. We have to win hearts and minds, not neccesarily for gun rights, but for a generally conservative government.
Click to expand...

You inaccurately assume that everyone who supports gun rights is conservative.
 
One could be forgiven for thinking that everyone who supports gun rights is reactionary rather than conservative but I know better. Likewise, one could assume that judging from reading a lot of the bumper stickers like I see everyday that lots of people don't really care for democratic elections, you know, the ones where the one with the most votes wins the election (usually!), because their candidate didn't win. I don't even know the last time we had a conservative government. So long I don't even know what conservative means. Oh, I hear lots of statements about ideals and traditions without ever hearing exactly what those ideals and traditions are. I'm not so young that I don't remember lots of bad things about the past.
 
ADB Quote:
You inaccurately assume that everyone who supports gun rights is conservative.

Well, if you don't use logic in your assumptions, I suppose anything at all could mean anything at all. However, when one is presented with a person who seems to have a reasonable grasp on the necessity and desirability of people taking responsibility for their own safety and equipping themselves appropriately to do that job, it IS after all natural to assume that the person will also have reasonable and logical positions on other things. Clearly that is, as you say, a bad assumption.
 
Ok - that's it. The endless liberal vs. conservative battle and do you have to be one to be a true gun believer gets us nowhere.

So, thanks for all the contributions and lights out.

Glenn
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top