What DID the Founding Fathers really mean?

It's factually false in that there were complex and expensive multishot arms of which that generation were aware. Someone posted about it here within the last month, with pictures iirc, but I can't locate the post.



How exactly did we kill Indians, bears and Canadians if all our rifles were kept in our homes?

I have a radical method for decoding the secret meaning of constitutional language. I read it.



Emphasis added.

That's peculiar wording if they meant arms needed to be left at home.
This!

When faced with such comments, I've stopped pretending I can "win the argument". I've realized that with many that start this type of discussion they are ignorant of our nation's founding principles.

I first ask if they have read the Constitution. I've not had a one that did more than equivocate.

I usually cut off their stammer and simply challenge them to read the Constitution, all of it, including the amendments and the preambles. I then suggest that when they are done they go back and find all the places the phrase "the right of the people" appears in the Constitution. I then suggest they go back and read the preamble to the Bill of Rights, and consider that if they don't respect one of those Rights I care about there is no reason for me to care about ones they might care about.

I usually offer to direct them to other references such as Commentaries on the Constitution. None have taken me up on the challenge.

I then suggest that being an American was never about where you were born or to what group you belonged. I usually finish with something along the lines of - if you can't support the Constitution, all of it, the parts you like and the ones you don't there is a simple solution. Go to State.gov and download a DS-4080 form and execute it.
 
Living Document . . .

I think the framers of the constitution saw it as a living document based on some absolute principals. They never intended for the freedom of speech to apply only to the channels of communication available to them. They didn't foresee electronic media, but clearly intended for the freedom of speech to extend that far and beyond.

So too the second amendment.

Life is good.

Prof Young
 
I think the framers of the constitution saw it as a living document based on some absolute principals.

It is and they even included a means to change it!!!

It is called an AMENDMENT.

It is sure as heck isn't some arbitrary and capricious interpretation out of Los Angeles or New York born out of a Starbucks safe zone.
 
Ahem.... I believe Prof Young was making the case that normal technical progress was covered -- and protected -- under the underlying core principles.
 
Ahem.... I believe Prof Young was making the case that normal technical progress was covered -- and protected -- under the underlying core principles.

Ahem......

I got that. What is unclear to you in what I wrote?
 
The purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the government did not have sole access to the means of coercive force. This is not a difficult concept.
 
The Unorganized Militia Act (sorry I don't remember when it was passed but my best reelection was around the time most of the framers of the constitution was still around) says that every member of the unorganized militia is required to have a firearm of the current military type. This makes me think they knew firearms technology was going to advance and the common man shouldn't be left behind...

Tony
 
Geezerbiker said:
The Unorganized Militia Act (sorry I don't remember when it was passed but my best reelection was around the time most of the framers of the constitution was still around) says that every member of the unorganized militia is required to have a firearm of the current military type. This makes me think they knew firearms technology was going to advance and the common man shouldn't be left behind...
I posted a link to the Militia Act of 1792 in post #29. The original Militia Act did not make any reference to an "unorganized" militia -- back then, the militias were all organized. The reference to the unorganized militia is found in the current Militia Act of 1903, which provides that the organized militia is the National Guard and the Naval Militia, and the unorganized militia is all other able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45.

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-10-armed-forces/10-usc-sect-311.html
 
The Federalist No. 29 is my personal favorite.
Remember, well regulated means in good working order, not controlled by the government. A well regulated machine is a machine that is tuned properly and working.

This is important, it shows the the government understands the meaning and roll of the 2nd Amendment.

https://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf


Following are a few excerpts from "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms", Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution. United States 97th Congress. The purpose of the subcommittee was to document the real intent of the founding fathers and framers of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and to put to rest those that want to introduce vague speculation as to meanings of words, commas, and such.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole
body of the people always possess arms, and be taught
alike, especially when young, how to use them."
(Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the
Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of
Independence, and member of the first Senate, which
passed the Bill of Rights.)

"The great object is that every man be armed ...
Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry,
in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the
Constitution.)

"The advantage of being armed ... the Americans
possess over the people of all other nations ...
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." (James
Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his
Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"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." (Second
Amendment to the Constitution.)

Samuel Adams, a handgun owner
who pressed for an amendment stating that the "Constitution shall never
be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are
peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms"

[The proposed 2nd Ammendment] finally passed the House in its present form:
"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." In
this form it was submitted into the Senate, which passed it the
following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the
right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an
amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to
bearing "For the common defense".

Joseph Story in his "Commentaries on the Constitution" considered the right to
keep and bear arms as "the palladium of the liberties of the republic",
which deterred tyranny and enabled the citizenry at large to overthrow
it should it come to pass.

In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined "militia of the
United States" to include almost every free adult male in the United
States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a firearm and a
minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment...
There can be little doubt from this
that when the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had
reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of
bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called
the National Guard. The purpose was to create an armed citizenry, which
the political theorists at the time considered essential to ward off
tyranny. From this militia, appropriate measures might create a "well
regulated militia" of individuals trained in their duties and
responsibilities as citizens and owners of firearms.
 
sirgilligan said:
Following are a few excerpts from "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms", Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution. United States 97th Congress. The purpose of the subcommittee was to document the real intent of the founding fathers and framers of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and to put to rest those that want to introduce vague speculation as to meanings of words, commas, and such.
Link to the full report:

https://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba82.pdf

I strongly advise anyone who finds this report interesting to make a copy of it. In the 37 years since it first came out it has appeared on various .gov web sites, then disappeared, reappeared elsewhere, then disappeared again. The link I have is to a copy hosted by The Constitution Society. We can hope that they will preserve it, but the report doesn't fit the current narrative, so nothing is certain. Download it and save your own copy to be sure you'll have it if you need to cite it.

The same applies to the 2004 Department of Justice report on the Second Amendment:

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2004/08/31/op-olc-v028-p0126.pdf

This report, too, has been posted on various .gov web sites, then disappeared, then reappeared, and then disappeared again. For the moment, it's up again. Under the Obama administration, it couldn't be found. Save a copy.
 
The framers of the U.S. Constitution didn't think everybody should be allowed to vote either. Nor would they ever have considered a media misused term like "assault weapons" would ever be possible. They expected the newspapers to print the truth and not repeat fallacies.
"...and Canadians..." You didn't. You lost the War of 1812 to British Regulars backed up by Militia and The Iroquois Confederacy. We had no bears enlisted and we were not Canadians until 1867.
 
They expected the newspapers to print the truth and not repeat fallacies.

The is both the most uneducated and hysterical thing I have read all day.

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.”

“advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.” - Thomas Jefferson

“Be not intimidated, therefore, by any terrors, from publishing with the utmost freedom whatever can be warranted by the laws of your country, nor suffer yourselves to be wheeled out of your library by any pretense of politeness, delicacy or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.” - John Adams, on the Boston Gazette

Some coverage of the election of 1800.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/09/17/party-time

Remember, a vote for Adams is a vote for Satan! You don't support Satan do you? I didn't think so.

I'm not even scratching the surface here.
 
As natman in ost #15 says-ask your youngriend what about TV, radio and the internet??

In no way could the founders ever envision those "new" things but try and take away the 1A from those and WOW...

Why should the SECOND be any different??
 
"...and Canadians..." You didn't. You lost the War of 1812 to British Regulars backed up by Militia and The Iroquois Confederacy. We had no bears enlisted and we were not Canadians until 1867.

Is that what they teach you in Canada?

Actually the War of 1812 ended " quo ante bellum" with everything returning to as it was before the war.

The four goals of the United States were accomplished:

1. Stop British Impressment of US Sailors

2. End British Support for Native American Tribes

3. Secure territorial honor and integrity vs former rulers.

4. Reopen trade lanes with France

All of those goals were accomplished by the United States in the War of 1812. Strategically it was a major US victory.

What did Britain the Commonwealth colonies accomplish? Nothing in terms of territory or treasure. In fact, it diverted much needed resources from the War with France.

Long term though, Britain and the Commonwealth colonies gained the friendship of the United States which has benefited your Country more than anything else. So in that sense, it was a victory for Canada.

As for being a Military Victory for Canada....nope.
 
That status quo ant "draw" was a bit hard on Pakenham . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Pakenham
... but one has to admire how tough men were those days, irrespective of which side.

(Though the children/grandchildren of few Scots survivors of Culloden might have thought the Royal Scots Fusiliers finally got their due . . . ;) :mad: )
 
1. Stop British Impressment of US Sailors

4. Reopen trade lanes with France

These happened independent of any US actions as the War with France ended.

2. End British Support for Native American Tribes

The Creek Indians were the big losers. The British threw them under the bus as soon as the war was over. It was back to genocide in America.

3. Secure territorial honor and integrity vs former rulers.

Their actual goal was to seize Canada. This failed miserably as the militia was poorly led, resourced and trained for such a task. Some militia units even refused orders to invade Canada. Which brings us back to a really important point.

The founders knew perfectly well that a militia was a poor and ineffective tool as a military. That was the point. So long as the people made up the military it could never be used as a tool of oppression domestically or internationally. Unfortunately it was never going to be sufficient to protect the country either.

What did Britain the Commonwealth colonies accomplish? Nothing in terms of territory or treasure. In fact, it diverted much needed resources from the War with France

They did not need to do much. They fought a defensive war on the cheap. Once the war with France was over the War in the Americas was on borrowed time. The blockade shut down American trade and brought them to the treaty table. They lost nothing.
 
"
The framers of the Constitution had never even imagined assault weapons that can slaughter hundreds of people in mere minutes. --- Their wording related to private citizens having the right to have simple weapons of that time in their homes.

Ask the young person at what point in history it occurred that firearms became too deadly for citizens to own. I imagine the founders never imagined 6 shot revolvers or lever action rifles either. But by the late 1800s they were quite common.

Was this young person implying that we should only be allowed to own muskets?
 
These happened independent of any US actions as the War with France ended.

British Impressment of US sailors ended with the War of 1812. It was not an official policy until 1835 but there are no more incidents of impressment after the war.

It was back to genocide in America.

Propaganda. The Creeks were not innocents brought to some holocaust genocide by the United States. They were willing participants in a war and every bit deserving of the title Warrior Tribesman.

They lost because they were technically outmatched but that does not take away from their bravery nor does it remove the fact they were combatants in a war. The idea they were some innocent natures children is pure poppycock pushed by the ignorant as a sound bite.

The Creek War (1813–1814), also known as the “Red Stick War,” began as a civil war within the Creek nation. A faction of younger men from the Upper Creek villages, known as “Red Sticks,” sought aggressively to resist U.S. invasion into their territories.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-ushistory/chapter/the-war-of-1812/

The Creek War was started by the Creeks when the Red Sticks massacred over 300 families at Ft Mims. Most of the casualties were women and children.

The Creek Nation was in the midst of its own civil war. The Red Sticks brought the United States into that conflict and as a result, the Creeks lost. As part of ending that war, they ceded 23 million acres of land.

Moral of the Story, do not start a war and lose.

Their actual goal was to seize Canada.

No. The acquisition of Canada was not a goal or reason why the United States entered the war. That was strategy once the war was entered.

Why invade Canada?
It was the closest British colony, but Madison also had political reasons for targeting America's northern neighbor. His Democratic-Republican Party drew much of its support from the rural South and what was then the American West — the territory stretching up the Mississippi basin to the Great Lakes. Frontier inhabitants were eager to strike at the British in Canada because they suspected them of arming Native American tribes that were standing in the way of America's westward expansion.

https://theweek.com/articles/473482/americas-invasion-canada-brief-history

And they most certainly were arming the Native Americans and encouraging armed conflict along the frontier. That was very much a Part of England's strategy with the eventual goal of retaking the Rebellious colonies.

Once more, Freedom Loving Americans thought their Canadian cousins did not relish living in English bondage as a colony. They actually expected the Canadians to fight on our side. It turned out the Canadians did love it and were loyal to the British Crown.

Goes to highlight how new the concepts of Governance and individual freedom were in the world put into action by the United States and philosophers of the French Revolution.
 
Apologies to the OP for taking bait and helping to take us down the wrong path. I stand by my opinions. If anyone wishes to discuss further about the War of 1812 send me a PM.
 
Back
Top