The history of 2nd ammendment

[BigStick]

So Hop, what exactly do you think the purpose of the 2A is, if not security from a tyranical government? While many of our laws have their roots in english common law, those English common laws now have no bearing in our system. If it was truly derived from english common law, I think justice Sotomayor would like it a lot more. Our laws are our own, pulled together from the best of the rest.

The writtings of our founders tell us about what they intended in writting the laws and constitution. The way I interpret their writtings is that the 2A was for the security of a free state. Secure against domestic individuals, natural dangers, and governmental dangers, foreign and domestic. It is the best way of ensuring that the power stays with the people, and the people take responsibility for thier own security.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Hopyard]

I think it had two purposes, both poorly articulated.

1) Was for the states to be able to maintain
regulated militias-- what we call the National Guard today; keeping in mind that Uncle didn't keep a standing
army worth anything at the git-go or the money to put an army together. Uncle didn't even have
a means for effectively bringing money to the treasury through taxation.

2) For ordinary people to be able to be armed for hunting and for self-defense; perhaps for dueling even.
I doubt those sons of Puritans thought much about sport shooting. "Fun" wasn't in the vocabulary
of people who by and large lived such precarious lives.

I don't for one second believe the framers and the authors of the BOR had any expectation that
there would be a need for "the people" to deal with a tyrannical government, given the structure of
our constitution.

P.S. There is a huge difference between tyranny and being hacked off at some rules or laws.
We get lots of participants who can't seem to figure out that just because they hate some provision
of --oh let's say the FAA regulations, doesn't mean they are suffering under tyranny. Did I wake you up
Tim?

[BigStick]

I agree that they may not have envisioned needing to overthrow a tyranical government, but they probably also didn't envision how much of their documents would be disregarded and outright violated. Or maybe they did, and that is why they made such clear declarations. I am not saying we are there yet, but that does not negate this as a primary purpose.

But I would dissagree that it was not well articulated. There was much discussion about how specific to be, and they left it intentionally open ended to prevent future generations from saying it is only meant for specific purposes and thereby restrict the general rights.

[ccw9mm]

The Constitution's Article I Section 8 does grant power to the Congress to suppress insurrections. The Civil War and various insurrections/rebellions since 1789 pretty much showed what Congress is prepared to do to suppress them, as some have pointed out.

The Declaration's recognition of legitimate circumstances for throwing off the yoke of oppression not achievable by other means was described fairly succinctly and forcefully: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."

And the Constitution's 9th Amendment made clear that enumeration of certain rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

None of which speaks to the sanity, wisdom or likelihood of success of such a path. Nonetheless, IMO it does remain a right of the People to pursue such a path if they so choose.

Example: Battle of Athens TN, 1946, though admittedly that was much more of bringing criminals to heel as opposed to abolishing or altering the "form" of their community's government.

Useful books, on the subject:

• The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government and an Armed Populace, 1787-1792, by David Young (ed). An exploration of the meaning of the 2A at the time of founding.
  
  
• The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms: A Definitive History of the Second Amendment, by David Young. A review of the intended, envisioned purpose of the 2A.
  
  
• That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, by Stephen Halbrook. It analyzes the 2A, where it came from, the debates in the original Congress, and it seeks to make sense of it all. This book blasts many myths out of the water.
  
  
• Supreme Court Gun Cases: Two Centuries of Gun Rights Revealed. It contains text and interpretation from every gun-related case in the history of this country, up to just the last few years.

An excerpt, from the Halbrook work:

That Every Man Be Armed: Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Ch 3, p 55):

The American Revolution and the Second Amendment:

'Strongly influenced by the philosophical classics and vigorously insisting on their common-law rights, the Americans who participated in the Revolution of 1776 and adopted the Bill of Rights held the individual right to use arms against tyranny to be fundamental. British firearms control policies that had been originally established to disarm and thereby conquer Indians came to be applied against the settlers themselves ...'

'After the armed populace had won the Revolution and the Constitution had been proposed, the Federalists promised that the new government would have no power to disarm the people. The anti-Federalists predicted that a standing army and select militia would come to overpower the people. In 1791, the American federal Bill of Rights was ratified, in part, as a formal recognition that private individuals would never be disarmed.'

[1MoreGoodGuy]

...I don't for one second believe the framers and the authors of the BOR had any expectation that
there would be a need for "the people" to deal with a tyrannical government, given the structure of
our constitution...

You can't possibly be talking about the same framers who just got finished dealing with a tyrannical government.

Because those intelligent men most certainly knew that they must do everything they could possibly do to make sure that the people had the best chance possible if they were to ever face a tyrannical government again. The framers wanted it to be hard, if not impossible, for a tyrannical government to establish itself and they wanted it to be as easy as possible for the people to prevent it from becoming established and they wanted the people to be able to do what they did...fight to get rid of the tyrannical government. So the framers did expect that the people may one day need to deal with a tyrannical government.

[oneshot]

I think it had two purposes, both poorly articulated.

1) Was for the states to be able to maintain
regulated militias-- what we call the National Guard today; keeping in mind that Uncle didn't keep a standing
army worth anything at the git-go or the money to put an army together. Uncle didn't even have
a means for effectively bringing money to the treasury through taxation.

2) For ordinary people to be able to be armed for hunting and for self-defense; perhaps for dueling even.
I doubt those sons of Puritans thought much about sport shooting. "Fun" wasn't in the vocabulary
of people who by and large lived such precarious lives.

I don't for one second believe the framers and the authors of the BOR had any expectation that
there would be a need for "the people" to deal with a tyrannical government, given the structure of
our constitution.

P.S. There is a huge difference between tyranny and being hacked off at some rules or laws.
We get lots of participants who can't seem to figure out that just because they hate some provision
of --oh let's say the FAA regulations, doesn't mean they are suffering under tyranny. Did I wake you up
Tim?

^^HUH???^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Poorly articulated?

On their WORST day, our forefathers & the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America were far more intelligent, and had a superior command of the English language, than any of these driveling, slobbering fools that hold office today.

1) & 2) from your post.

??? Did you miss my post #6???
Maybe you caught ccw9mm's post # 19.

You really believe they(the framers) thought NOTHING of tyrrannical governments, and were not trying to safeguard a means with which to protect the people FROM them?

Your FAA analogy;

What difference does it make what regulations, or from what part of government some law, tax or action the government takes, be it on the local, state or federal level, that violates common sense or law, or oppresses the citizens by whatever means.
Once you have enough of those ,from any aspect of government, and it becomes too oppressive, that is where you must draw the distinction.

Hopyard, if you took 100 apples from 100 different trees and put them all in a basket, you'd still have a bushel of apples.
They are still apples from different trees.
Just like the oppressive measures a tyrranical goverment takes from different aspects of society

[RightsEroding]

That is a fantasy interpretation that is inconsistent with our own early and actual history.

What really gets to me is the persistent assertions by a few participants that somehow our government
is tyrannical. You don't like it, there is nothing whatsoever to stop you from doing your part to bring about
change, including running for elected office at the local level. If you are a success, you can go higher.

You statements may have been true 100 years ago.

Just as we have lost, lose and continue to lose rights; so goes (representation).
Representation? We lost that years ago.

I would love to hear your dissertation on how primarily millionaires have any commonality or a reference base with the average citizen.

To begin a grass roots movement, one must have seed, soil and workers. Sadly, the first two were bought & sold years ago. The third is either controlled or suffer from acute apathy brought on by social engineering and entitlements.

"...chaotic bloody country..."

Please! Just how do you think freedom was paid for when tyranny raised it's head?..and you don't think that could happen here? It already has!
I suggest you re-read your history.

[ksholder]

I think it had two purposes, both poorly articulated.

1) Was for the states to be able to maintain
regulated militias-- what we call the National Guard today; keeping in mind that Uncle didn't keep a standing
army worth anything at the git-go or the money to put an army together. Uncle didn't even have
a means for effectively bringing money to the treasury through taxation.

2) For ordinary people to be able to be armed for hunting and for self-defense; perhaps for dueling even.
I doubt those sons of Puritans thought much about sport shooting. "Fun" wasn't in the vocabulary
of people who by and large lived such precarious lives.

I don't for one second believe the framers and the authors of the BOR had any expectation that
there would be a need for "the people" to deal with a tyrannical government, given the structure of
our constitution.

P.S. There is a huge difference between tyranny and being hacked off at some rules or laws.
We get lots of participants who can't seem to figure out that just because they hate some provision
of --oh let's say the FAA regulations, doesn't mean they are suffering under tyranny. Did I wake you up
Tim?

So, Hop, what, in your opinion, is a domestic enemy (in the context of the oath taken for many government/military positions)?

[Hopyard]

The Constitution's Article I Section 8 does grant power to the Congress to suppress insurrections. The Civil War and various insurrections/rebellions since 1789 pretty much showed what Congress is prepared to do to suppress them, as some have pointed out.

The Declaration's recognition of legitimate circumstances for throwing off the yoke of oppression not achievable by other means was described fairly succinctly and forcefully: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."

And the Constitution's 9th Amendment made clear that enumeration of certain rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

None of which speaks to the sanity, wisdom or likelihood of success of such a path. Nonetheless, IMO it does remain a right of the People to pursue such a path if they so choose.

EXCELLENT: A constitution with this in it, "The Congress shall have the power: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

This was not written by men who countenanced breaking the law by insurrection.

Regarding the wise comment: "none of this speaks to the sanity...of such a path," indeed. It is not a sane path in today's world. And because it is not a sane path in today's world we harm our own interests every time one of us uses the argument
that 2A legitimizes insurrection or rebellion or armed resistance to the law, in some way.



The Declaration of Independence is not law, and was written for a very specific set of circumstances. And it was written
not by individual citizens conspiring to rebel, but by elected representatives from the various colonies. That is a far cry from
what many participants here seem to believe occurred or seem to think 2A allows for.

[Hopyard]

So, Hop, what, in your opinion, is a domestic enemy (in the context of the oath taken for many government/military positions)?

Someone like Aaron Burr, who was tried and acquitted for treason. The militia was needed to capture him and deliver him for trial.

(This was an unrelated matter from the duel with Hamilton,
and the charges were pursued by none other than the firebrand so many here like to quote for their faux justifications, Thomas Jefferson.)

[Hopyard]

You statements may have been true 100 years ago.

Just as we have lost, lose and continue to lose rights; so goes (representation).
Representation? We lost that years ago.

I would love to hear your dissertation on how primarily millionaires have any commonality or a reference base with the average citizen.

To begin a grass roots movement, one must have seed, soil and workers. Sadly, the first two were bought & sold years ago. The third is either controlled or suffer from acute apathy brought on by social engineering and entitlements.

"...chaotic bloody country..."

Please! Just how do you think freedom was paid for when tyranny raised it's head?..and you don't think that could happen here? It already has!
I suggest you re-read your history.

IMO, every post such as the above harms the interest of the average law abiding conscientious and patriotic gun owner.
It makes us look like a danger to our nation.

[peckman28]

There is mention in several places of the Federalist Papers that the government cannot become tyrannical because the populace is better armed than the army is. It's in there, and no amount of fantasizing about what was written back then changes it. Does that mean we have gone so far down the path of tyranny now that we need an armed revolution to fix it? I highly doubt it. It also doesn't mean that many, if any, of the founders viewed that as the preferred path. However, to pretend that doesn't exist in the context of the 2A is to completely ignore the writings of the time that are available for anyone to find at the local book store.

[GunGeezer]

IMHO the will and rights of the people have been taken by selfish and greedy lawyers and politicians. The only way back now would be to put a bounty on them.

[Hopyard]

There is mention in several places of the Federalist Papers that the government cannot become tyrannical because the populace is better armed than the army is. It's in there, and no amount of fantasizing about what was written back then changes it. Does that mean we have gone so far down the path of tyranny now that we need an armed revolution to fix it? I highly doubt it. It also doesn't mean that many, if any, of the founders viewed that as the preferred path. However, to pretend that doesn't exist in the context of the 2A is to completely ignore the writings of the time that are available for anyone to find at the local book store.

Keep in mind that The Federalist Papers were written mostly by one man as editorial commentary to promote
ratification of the new constitution. The words in there are neither law nor reflections of broad opinion of the day on
every matter. And, Hamilton was for an extremely powerful Federal government and was accused therefore of being
a monarchist. The Federalists were often accused of being monarchists. You have to take individual quotes from the context
of the time and their purpose and the rest of the document and history.

What the framers put in Article 1 Section 8 was precisely their intentions and well worded. 2A is controversial precisely because
the language is so unclear that we are able to argue about it incessantly.

[peckman28]

What the framers put in Article 1 Section 8 was precisely their intentions and well worded. 2A is controversial precisely because
the language is so unclear that we are able to argue about it incessantly.

It's quite clearly written, actually. It's certainly no less clear than any of the other BoR amendments, and really some others are probably less clear, as the "takings clause" shows us. What the modern "interpretations" boil down to is statists trying to twist it into something that they wish it to mean, rather than what the clear English it is written in actually says. It forbids federal gun control, plain and simple. There is abundant evidence that the founding fathers intended for the people to be as well-armed as the army, and in many cases people were better armed. The argument that there shouldn't be things like machine guns and grenade launchers for civilians now is completely false to anyone objectively studying history; particularly those who look at the successes that privately owned warships saw against the British Navy during the War of 1812.