What DID the Founding Fathers really mean?

The founders had cannons, so yes they did. Also someone with a MSR cannot "kill 100's of people in minutes", so that's a patently false statement.

I don't know the proper attribution at the moment, however when asked what is covered under the 2nd Amendment one response at the time (paraphrased) was 'every evil instrument of war carried by the foot-soldier'.

The 2nd Amendment is the teeth of our Constitution. It's the doomsday provision. If all else fails, it allows the people to retake their Liberty. If we ever lose this our freedom will be forever lost.

During WWII a Japanese General was asked why he didn't invade the US. His answer was it couldn't be done. 'There would be a rifle at every window and corner to confront them.'

Gift that person a copy of the Federalist Papers, Paul Revere's Ride, and Washington's Crossing. They will then fully understand our history and the intent of the Constitution.
 
In addition to protection from tyranny, I’m sure our founding fathers understood the need for private gun ownership for defense of home, family, and property. Colonial times didn’t have the same types or degree of threats as we have today, such as rampant drug addiction, armed gangs, drug dealers, terrorism, and armed home invasions. Not to say there wasn’t any crime and violence back then, but home defense weapons must evolve to meet evolving threats, including threats that our founding fathers did not foresee.

A 30 round magazine is not unreasonable considering:

- Home defense often takes place at night against moving targets by frightened citizens

- The average trained police officer typically misses 3 out of 4 shots in a close range fire fight

- Two or three hits per person may be needed to stop the threat

- The typical home invasion involves 3-5 attackers

Given the above, if you woke up at night to find your house was broken into by multiple invaders and you had two firearms available to you, one with 10 rounds and one with 30 rounds, which would you reach for? Ask that of your young friend.

For these reasons, high capacity firearms have a place in home defense against a worse-case scenario where the consequences could be severe harm or death to you and family members. There are downsides of course to defending your home with high capacity powerful rifles (or any firearm for that matter), but that choice should be made by the home owners, not the government.

Many feel a line needs to be drawn somewhere with regard to private ownership of powerful weapons. The semi-automatic rifle appears to be the current battleground as to where a line should be drawn between weapons of mass destruction and a .22 revolver. If the line settles below semi-automatic rifles you can be sure the battleground will quickly sink a level, then another, then another.

You may want to ask your young friends what their plan is for removing the 16 million semi-automatic rifles in circulation today. Since laws only work on law-abiding citizens, banning them will only serve to weaken the defensive abilities of good people, which the bad people will love. If they want to disarm only bad people, suggest they focus on enforcing the thousands of existing laws regulating firearms, and work to break up the thriving underground market that feeds the weapons to the bad people. Then turn their attention to the social issues that lead to sick and twisted people wandering among us. Banning guns feels good but is simply ineffective.
 
USNRet93 said:
Social Security and medicare/medicad are both 'socialism' in action.
Click to expand...
No, those are social welfare programs, not Socialism. Socialism is when the government owns the means of production. If the government confiscates US Steel from the shareholders and nationalizes it, that's Socialism. Providing for social welfare and infrastructure is not Socialism.
 
TheGunGeek said:
I don't know the proper attribution at the moment, however when asked what is covered under the 2nd Amendment one response at the time (paraphrased) was 'every evil instrument of war carried by the foot-soldier'.
Click to expand...
Not quite, but close. See post #4.
 
Armed Chicagoan said:
USNRet93 said:
Social Security and medicare/medicad are both 'socialism' in action.
Click to expand...
No, those are social welfare programs, not Socialism. Socialism is when the government owns the means of production. If the government confiscates US Steel from the shareholders and nationalizes it, that's Socialism. Providing for social welfare and infrastructure is not Socialism.
Click to expand...

I would take the other end of that argument any day. It is only the most primitive form of socialism that requires the state to own all manufacturing. Ever since Lenin reduced the Russian population by means of starvation, socialists have known that they are better off controlling private production by means of regulation and fiat than outright ownership. Socialism is not merely a theory or an ideology; it is also the practice of more than century of socialists in politics.

Bernie Sanders describes himself as a socialist, yet he allows for privately owned manufacturing. Is he not truly a socialist? In this matter, I defer to those who self identify as socialists.

That said, the idea than voting, maintaining a military and building highways are examples of socialism cannot withstand a moment’s scrutiny. Ideas that predate both socialism has an idea and any self identified socialists are not reasonably identified as examples of socialism.

USNRet93 said:
Do ya suppose they envisioned the policies of either of the Roosevelts or Lincoln?
Click to expand...

Whether specific men foresaw restrictions of on individual economic freedom as championed by FDR is not pertinent to their constitutionality. That is part of the reason the Supreme Court found those restrictions unconstitutional.

That is the closer analogy to Second Amendment rights. Those rights can be lost politically just as a large degree of economic freedom was lost under FDR because a court bent to political pressure to allow momentarily popular restrictions.
 
zukiphile said:
Ever since Lenin reduced the Russian population by means of starvation, socialists have known that they are better off controlling private production by means of regulation and fiat than outright ownership.
Click to expand...
That form of Socialism, invented by Mussolini, is called Fascism. The classic definition of Socialism as defined by Marx (as the predecessor to and prerequisite for Communism) is the government owning the means of production. And that is the form of Socialism espoused by, for example, the Democratic Socialists of America.

But to get back on topic, the Founding Fathers absolutely intended the people to have the same sort of arms a typical soldier would carry. They would be shocked by the restrictions government imposes today IMHO.
 
Armed Chicagoan said:
That form of Socialism, invented by Mussolini, is called Fascism. The classic definition of Socialism as defined by Marx (as the predecessor to and prerequisite for Communism) is the government owning the means of production. And that is the form of Socialism espoused by, for example, the Democratic Socialists of America.
Click to expand...

The problem with a purely prescriptive notion of socialism as described by Marx, is that it leaves you with an idea as poorly defined as his other ideas and only vaguely related to socialist practice. Marx didn't understand economics or people all that well, and he wasn't in a position to accurately describe a movement that became important after he died.

A descriptive definition of socialism will incorporate the practice and ideas of socialists. The modern problem with the prescriptive definition of socialism as government means of production is that it is employed by socialists to sidestep the provenance of their policies. In practice, this means that some in politics will deny being socialists while advocating the policy of socialist parties.

There is a neat article by Mack Tanner on what fascism actually means now, if anything. https://snomhf.exofire.net/politics/fascistEpithet.html
 
But to get back on topic, the Founding Fathers absolutely intended the people to have the same sort of arms a typical soldier would carry.
Click to expand...

More than that, going back to the OP, the Militia Act of 1792 REQUIRED every able bodied man to purchase and own a rifle suitable for use in combat. It had to be registered as well, to show on paper that the person had such a suitable arm.
 
MTT TL said:
More than that, going back to the OP, the Militia Act of 1792 REQUIRED every able bodied man to purchase and own a rifle suitable for use in combat. It had to be registered as well, to show on paper that the person had such a suitable arm.
Click to expand...
Correct.

Further, even if the individual owed money, his militia rifle could not be taken from him.

... and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
Click to expand...

https://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
 
To put it in to context though the founding fathers were very much opposed to standing armies and state military power at all. They recognized it as a tool of oppression, not just domestically but also against other countries. If you think they would be shocked at our gun laws that is nothing compared to how they would see the modern US military and all the things our government does with it.

Having a militia would allow for defense of the homeland and little else. This proved to have some serious problems by 1801 when the Barbary War kicked off, followed by the War of 1812 and the Second Barbary War. These experiences altered the outlook of the founders when faced with real life problems they had to solve. Particularly Jefferson and Madison.
 
Armed_Chicagoan said:
No, those are social welfare programs, not Socialism. Socialism is when the government owns the means of production. If the government confiscates US Steel from the shareholders and nationalizes it, that's Socialism. Providing for social welfare and infrastructure is not Socialism.
Click to expand...
Correct and the various positions by some Dems are not 'socialism' either..these 'socialist' comments are buttons, sound bites..was my point.
Bernie Sanders describes himself as a socialist, yet he allows for privately owned manufacturing
Click to expand...

No, he describes himself as a "democratic socialist"..I'm talking about the oft repeated claim that the dems are 'socialists', they are not..they are in the vain of others who favor public support for those who are less fortunate.
but I don't think the founding fathers envisioned today's democrat/socialist party
Click to expand...
 
USNRet93 said:
Correct and the various positions by some Dems are not 'socialism' either..these 'socialist' comments are buttons, sound bites..was my point.


No, he describes himself as a "democratic socialist"..I'm talking about the oft repeated claim that the dems are 'socialists', they are not..they are in the vain of others who favor public support for those who are less fortunate.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you're right... these candidates are going all out with their campaigns promoting American values... confiscating guns... First and most important step. Increased taxes at any cost under the guise of any lie. Take over of healthcare that will also take care of illegal immigrants... in no way trying to incentivize illegals to illegally vote huh? Ending fossil fuels... as Obama's draconian regulations were on the road to accomplishing in many states...

Yeah, I'm just using the term Democrats/Socialist Party because I have no idea of what I'm talking about.

You ever notice how socialists/communists use Resources as a Weapon against their citizenry? Do Republicans ever concoct these strategies? Try to stay the past 100 years with your coming awe inspiring response. There is only one party that wants to see any prosperity among the USA as a whole and only one that wants to make it's citizens subjects and dependent on them. And when they are dependent, they will make use of their weapons. If you don't see the agenda of this democrat/socialist party and how they are aligned with the infamous communist/socialist governments of the past, then you have your head in the sand. At least I learn something from the people posting in response to you... you should try it too.
 
The rules for TFL preclude discussions of political topics. Posts here, with limited exceptions, must be firearms-related. The question posed in the opening post of this discussion was firearms-related:

I ask for assistance on historical documentation from our Founding Fathers. What did they envision for our Right to bear arms? The Militia Act of 1792 is as good as I can find.
Click to expand...

We are drifting rather far afield. I suggest the discussion return to the original question or this thread will have to be closed.
 
I ask for assistance on historical documentation from our Founding Fathers. What did they envision for our Right to bear arms? The Militia Act of 1792 is as good as I can find.
Click to expand...

As already mentioned, you need to look at the Federalist Papers, and for balance, the Anti-Federalist Papers as well.

It is in these collections you will find the arguments and trains of thought concerning what our government should, and should not be, and what our rights are, and aren't, vs. the government.

You won't find much case law or court rulings from the early days of our Republic concerning firearms rights, as in that era our new government rarely infringed on those rights, so very few, if any cases about them went to court to become precedent.

A lot has changed since then, but it seems fairly clear to me, and a lot of the rest of us that the Founders felt the government should not infringe on citizens possessing (keep and bear) military grade weapons.

Applying current "moral" values to past era's actions is one of the classic mistakes people make when looking at history. If you face someone who claims that the Founders couldn't have foreseen "modern assault weapons", and implies that IF they HAD, they would have banned them is a leap of faith, not supported by any evidence anyone has ever presented.

In fact, there is some evidence (the Militia act) that if the Founders HAD foreseen modern assault weapons, they would have REQUIRED citizens to own them!!

Toss that back at the person who claims we should not have them because the Founders couldn't have imagined them. Boldly agree with them, that yes, the founders didn't imagine them, and state, but if they had, they would have required us to have them!! Challenge them to prove otherwise!!

They can't, but it may shut them up and make them go away for a while as they look for proof of their position...:D:rolleyes:
 
Thanks to all that have posted. The Militia Act of 1792 was sufficient to cause a "no reply" by my young left wing snowflake. I learned a lot, perhaps they did as well.
 
It may be worth commenting, by way of reinforcement, that the requirement in the Militia Act of 1792 for registering one's militia rifle was clearly (in context) NOT to make it easier for the government to subsequently find all the rifles and confiscate them, but to ensure that every man actually had such a rifle, and so the local militia commander(s) had an accurate count of how many riflemen they would have available if their unit was called to serve.
 
And does anyone know if those arms 'registered' for militia service had serial numbers? I suspect not. There should be plenty of historical examples.

Or was the the 'registration' done such as an entry in the militia record that 'John Smith' appeared at Church, Sunday last, with prescribed musket, powder, and ball.
 
mehavey said:
Meanwhile.... this kind of CommonSenseSolution logic ought to give you pause:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...d-liberty.html
Click to expand...

Under such a two-guns-per-person law, would anyone be prevented from owning a firearm to defend themselves in their home? Clearly not. Whether or not you agree with this idea, it’s plainly correct that neither the Second Amendment nor any other part of the Constitution stands in the way of policy proposals like this one.
Click to expand...
Except for that pesky "... shall not be infringed" part (which the author has already cavalierly written off by the time we get to the part cited above).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top