Context; Could it Matter

[gkjpalmer]

After just liberating themselves from what was viewed a tyrannical strong centrally powered government...here comes Maddison and co proposing a centralized government to men of individual states where they governed.

It was a hard sell....and probably a hard swallow.

Lets remember, the Red coats in England were not comprised of malitia, or national guard units from individual states. Englands soldiers were directly formed and in the employ of the King and the Central Government.

It seems logical then that the States, their officials and their residents were aprehensive on the notion of centralized government as it seems logical that the selling point for Madison and Co was to say...you get to keep and form your own well organised, regulated malitia made of your people to protect your self and your state from the central government we are proposing. Further, the central government can not infringe on that right.

There is no evidence or reason for Maddison or the States to even talk about Joe Smith owning fire arms to protect himself from Bob Jones. That problem of Joe shooting Bob did not exist, and to suggest that the second amendment addresses Joe and Bob protecting themselves from each other as individuals just does not make any sense.

It seems More plausible that it was the Central government saying to the people of each State, you have a right to protect yourself from the central government by forming your own well regulated (Well practiced and prepared) Malitia, and nothing about Joe or Bob owning guns.

 

[Katzndogz]

Why would you think that the problem of Joe shooting Bob did not exist? Are you under the mistaken impression that the colonies were crime free?

 

[gkjpalmer]

Katzndogs...maybe you could tell me about crime in the colonys, and perhaps sight the crimes where a criminal used a firearm.

Besides you may have missed my point...while trying to form a central government considering the enormity of the proposition it is inconceivable, that the founders were attempting to solve every crime,issue, or problem known to man.

put it this way...When Madison showed up in New Hampshire, do you think he said lets talk about Joe and Bob and weather they should have guns?

I dont think so. The topic was the Rights of the people living in a State to protect themselves from a centralized Governmental Power and the solution was for the not yet established central body to agree to each state having its own well regulated army made up of its people.

I dont think Madison gave a thought towards Joe or Bob as individuals per say,....they werent the issue.

 

[oldfart]

Why would you think that the problem of Joe shooting Bob did not exist? Are you under the mistaken impression that the colonies were crime free?

I think we are overlooking the obvious. At the time of adoption of the Second Amendment
America was largely a coast-hugging frontier society whose greatest physical threat was native Americans who raided in small quickly moving bands. There was no time to wait for troops to come to rescue of Ft Pitt from New Jersey. The only feasible solution at the time was a locally based militia with weapons in the hands of the citizen soldiers (with the artillery at the fort). A central government's highly trained professional army was of little use in dealing with the hit-and-run tactics of a border war.

I'm amazed at the fact that this clear rationale was obvious to everyone over two hundred years ago and has apparently been forgotten.

The issue was next revisited during Reconstruction when the Radical Republican Supreme Court was not sure who would end up controlling the local and state governments in the South, Reconstruction governments or revanchists. To cover their bets, they used the Second Amendment to allow the blacks and whites who participated in Reconstruction to defend themselves from the Klan. The Supreme Court cases on the Second Amendment were aimed at lynch mobs and night riders. This too has apparently been lost in the mists of time and ideology.

So the Second Amendment before the twentieth century had nothing to do with personal protection of the homestead and the mention of a militia was not an awkward justification for gun ownership; it was a necessity of the time.

 

[Katzndogz]

Katzndogs...maybe you could tell me about crime in the colonys, and perhaps sight the crimes where a criminal used a firearm.

Besides you may have missed my point...while trying to form a central government considering the enormity of the proposition it is inconceivable, that the founders were attempting to solve every crime,issue, or problem known to man.

put it this way...When Madison showed up in New Hampshire, do you think he said lets talk about Joe and Bob and weather they should have guns?

I dont think so. The topic was the Rights of the people living in a State to protect themselves from a centralized Governmental Power and the solution was for the not yet established central body to agree to each state having its own well regulated army made up of its people.

I dont think Madison gave a thought towards Joe or Bob as individuals per say,....they werent the issue.

Crime in the colonies was handled individually. If someone broke into your home, you shot them or hacked them up as if they were firewood. If someone defrauded you or cheated you, they were challenged to a duel. If a man raped a woman, her male relatives would track him down and dispose of the body in an unmarked grave. While we didn't chop the hands off thieves, we did brand their hands with a T for thief and everyone know who they were and what they did. Minor crimes, what would be infractions today got a stint in the public stocks. It's not like a judge or jury sentenced someone to the stocks. The victim and his friends would find the miscreant and put them in the stocks to remain there until he was forgiven and released. If not the stocks, there were pillories and always public whippings. The lash had more of an effect against crime than the ten days at hard gym we give criminals. For one thing, it was immediate with no appeal process.

As cities grew there was some formal law enforcement and criminals were imprisoned. Then they were handed off to the merchant ships and galleys as pressmen for which the ship owner paid. It wasn't exactly a death sentence, some survived. It was handed out no matter what the age.

Your first mistake is in thinking that the founders were trying to form a centralized government. Over and over again, the founders warned against a centralized government. It was never their intent to form a centralized government. That's why the first governing document of the colonies was the Articles of Confederation. The United States was supposed to be a very weak federal government and strong state governments.

When Madison showed up in New Hampshire there was no need to talk about whether Joe and Bob should have guns, it was accepted that Joe, Bob and even Sally should have a gun.

 

[Mad Scientist]

OP is correct about State Militias but doesn't know that We The People also need protection from State and Local Gov'ts as well as neighbors who wanna' steal your stuff.

I'd like to ask the OP a question.

Look at this:

"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."

Now, after reading that could you tell me WHY the comma's were placed where they are and what that does to the meaning of it?

Just the comma's now, not the rest of the 2nd Amendment. Just answer as to the placement of the commas. Like you're back in English class.

Thanks in advance.

 

[gkjpalmer]

Katzndogz

I would like to know where you have gathered your understanding of colonial history.

I would like for you to direct me to the horrors of hacking and bloodshed that you describe.

I know that you might sight "Savage Natives'" attacking settlers but if you are interested in the truth, the Natives didnt own guns when we first arrived. its a whole part of a different story as to why Natives attacked settlers which may be more explained as a matter of their land being increasingly taken and their culture being stomped into the ground.

As to most crimes committed in our agrarian beginnings, they were mostly crimes of debt or against God or intoxication. To suggest that there were LA gangs or Mob like hits and jobs and that you were not safe from your neighbor is just historically, factually un-supported.

 

[gkjpalmer]

Madscientist
They were trying to ratify a Constitutution of United States and form a Centralized level. The conversation was between Pro centralized supporters and the Governments of each State which pre-existed a Centralized Government.

Why would a non existant pro centralized government folk get into weather the states individuals should own weapons or not....that was clearly left to the states to decide. The question was How do we in Rhode Isaland, protect ourselves from your proposed central Government? Answer: You and the people of your State can form a well practiced, well controlled, armed, professional militia and the proposed central government can not infringe on your States right to do that. (Remember, this is the 1780s)

Look, Im just saying that if we work to bring context to the discussion...the second amendment written into the constitution was for permission and agreement to Form a Central Government from the States.
This makes more sense than suggestion that the Second Amendment was about you owning a gun to protect yourself from me. I believe the second amendment was about States protecting themselves from a central government, not about every Tom, Dick and Harry protecting themselves from every other Tom Dick or Harry.

After the adoption, every town in every state set up central armories and trained a well regulated Malitia. They didnt start handing out guns and munitions to all their residents.

 

[gkjpalmer]

We hire and train Police to Provide protection in every town of every state.
We get to choose who gets elected in every Town and State.

We can own our pistols and hunting rifles in every state. We can alarm and secure our property.

WE are the People. We are the Government, both Local, State and Federal!

If you pay attention more to the individual right to vote , the quality of our Law enforcement and our political representatives, they are the better part of ourselves and we dont have to defend ourselves from ourselves.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Madscientist
They were trying to ratify a Constitutution of United States and form a Centralized level. The conversation was between Pro centralized supporters and the Governments of each State which pre-existed a Centralized Government.

Why would a non existant pro centralized government folk get into weather the states individuals should own weapons or not....that was clearly left to the states to decide. The question was How do we in Rhode Isaland, protect ourselves from your proposed central Government? Answer: You and the people of your State can form a well practiced, well controlled, armed, professional militia and the proposed central government can not infringe on your States right to do that. (Remember, this is the 1780s)

Look, Im just saying that if we work to bring context to the discussion...the second amendment written into the constitution was for permission and agreement to Form a Central Government from the States.
This makes more sense than suggestion that the Second Amendment was about you owning a gun to protect yourself from me. I believe the second amendment was about States protecting themselves from a central government, not about every Tom, Dick and Harry protecting themselves from every other Tom Dick or Harry.

After the adoption, every town in every state set up central armories and trained a well regulated Malitia. They didnt start handing out guns and munitions to all their residents.

So, the second amendment states that that states have the right to form militias?

It does not mention states, it says the people.

 

[PaulS1950]

The second amendment does not specify that states had the right to form militias but the constitution does. It states that the states can form militias that are controlled by the governor of each state. It says that the federal government will provide training and ammunition to those militias and the they are to remain separate from any federal army.
The second amendment simply reminds us that militias are formed of civilians who have their own guns and are taught military practices and tactics so they are a potent fighting force just like the federal military. It was further supposed that (like in Switzerland) the civilian population would always have access to the same arms that the current military had. That ended (or was severely restricted) in the early 1900s when machine guns were taken out of the hands of the population because organized criminals were abusing them.
A state militia is composed of "...all able bodied men..." in the state.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Madscientist
They were trying to ratify a Constitutution of United States and form a Centralized level. The conversation was between Pro centralized supporters and the Governments of each State which pre-existed a Centralized Government.

Why would a non existant pro centralized government folk get into weather the states individuals should own weapons or not....that was clearly left to the states to decide. The question was How do we in Rhode Isaland, protect ourselves from your proposed central Government? Answer: You and the people of your State can form a well practiced, well controlled, armed, professional militia and the proposed central government can not infringe on your States right to do that. (Remember, this is the 1780s)

Look, Im just saying that if we work to bring context to the discussion...the second amendment written into the constitution was for permission and agreement to Form a Central Government from the States.
This makes more sense than suggestion that the Second Amendment was about you owning a gun to protect yourself from me. I believe the second amendment was about States protecting themselves from a central government, not about every Tom, Dick and Harry protecting themselves from every other Tom Dick or Harry.

After the adoption, every town in every state set up central armories and trained a well regulated Malitia. They didnt start handing out guns and munitions to all their residents.

The first salient feature of the operative clause [of the Second Amendment] is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

D.C. v. Heller (2008)

Or a state’s militia.

Indeed, in order for a Foundation Era militia to function in a given state it must first be able to call upon its armed citizens, who would participate with their own personal firearms; the process of militia members marshalling at an armory or the like to be provided weapons for the state’s defense is a later development.

The Second Amendment, therefore, was originally intended to protect a citizen’s right to self-defense, to own a firearm to that end, and to be able to participate in his state’s militia accordingly.