Historical Context of the framing of the 2A

[LibertyKid]

With all the discussion going on, let's start another. Let's focus on the framing of the 2A and the historical context that established the 2A.

First, you should read this:

Amdt2.2 Historical Background on Second Amendment​

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/

• Important Notes to Consider:
  • The mistrust of "Standing Armies" - States wanted to arm the people, who would form militias to protect themselves if needed instead of a Gov't Sponsored (standing) army.
  • This mistrust came from the British controlled miltary
  • Standing armies were perceived to be dangerous to Liberty
  • Pennsylvania Declaration of Independence states:
    • That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
  • Massachusetts:s DOR: T
    • he people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.7
  • Original 2A Wording:
    • The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
    • Wording was changed to recognize that militias came from the people, but the idea and clause that citizens were still armed regardless of a militia was needed.

We can debate the intention of the 2A, but historical context that framed the 2A was meant to arm the people for self defense and defense against the gov't when the necessary means are needed.

 

[Bell Huey]

With all the discussion going on, let's start another. Let's focus on the framing of the 2A and the historical context that established the 2A.

First, you should read this:

Amdt2.2 Historical Background on Second Amendment​

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/

• Important Notes to Consider:
  • The mistrust of "Standing Armies" - States wanted to arm the people, who would form militias to protect themselves if needed instead of a Gov't Sponsored (standing) army.
  • This mistrust came from the British controlled miltary
  • Standing armies were perceived to be dangerous to Liberty
  • Pennsylvania Declaration of Independence states:
    • That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
  • Massachusetts:s DOR: T
    • he people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.7
  • Original 2A Wording:
    • The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
    • Wording was changed to recognize that militias came from the people, but the idea and clause that citizens were still armed regardless of a militia was needed.

We can debate the intention of the 2A, but historical context that framed the 2A was meant to arm the people for self defense and defense against the gov't when the necessary means are needed.

I'm with ya but good luck with the gunophobes.

 

[LibertyKid]

I'm with ya but good luck with the gunophobes.

Their lack of participation says something...

 

[whitehall]

Whatever the self described "Constitution Annotated" says, the 2nd Amendment has been upheld by about a dozen Supreme court decisions.

 

[Winston]

With all the discussion going on, let's start another. Let's focus on the framing of the 2A and the historical context that established the 2A.

First, you should read this:

Amdt2.2 Historical Background on Second Amendment​

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/

• Important Notes to Consider:
  • The mistrust of "Standing Armies" - States wanted to arm the people, who would form militias to protect themselves if needed instead of a Gov't Sponsored (standing) army.
  • This mistrust came from the British controlled miltary
  • Standing armies were perceived to be dangerous to Liberty
  • Pennsylvania Declaration of Independence states:
    • That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
  • Massachusetts:s DOR: T
    • he people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.7
  • Original 2A Wording:
    • The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
    • Wording was changed to recognize that militias came from the people, but the idea and clause that citizens were still armed regardless of a militia was needed.

We can debate the intention of the 2A, but historical context that framed the 2A was meant to arm the people for self defense and defense against the gov't when the necessary means are needed.

Check out North Carolina's,

Sec. 30. Militia and the right to bear arms.

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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

How does that last statement stand if the second amendment was based on the right of self-defense?

 

[frigidweirdo]

With all the discussion going on, let's start another. Let's focus on the framing of the 2A and the historical context that established the 2A.

First, you should read this:

Amdt2.2 Historical Background on Second Amendment​

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/

• Important Notes to Consider:
  • The mistrust of "Standing Armies" - States wanted to arm the people, who would form militias to protect themselves if needed instead of a Gov't Sponsored (standing) army.
  • This mistrust came from the British controlled miltary
  • Standing armies were perceived to be dangerous to Liberty
  • Pennsylvania Declaration of Independence states:
    • That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
  • Massachusetts:s DOR: T
    • he people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.7
  • Original 2A Wording:
    • The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
    • Wording was changed to recognize that militias came from the people, but the idea and clause that citizens were still armed regardless of a militia was needed.

We can debate the intention of the 2A, but historical context that framed the 2A was meant to arm the people for self defense and defense against the gov't when the necessary means are needed.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is a very important document, shows what the Founding Fathers were thinking.

Also shows that "bear arms" meant "militia duty" or "render military service" and not "I want to walk around with my gun wherever I like".

 

[M14 Shooter]

Whatever the self described "Constitution Annotated" says, the 2nd Amendment has been upheld by about a dozen Supreme court decisions.

Correct.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes.

Whining and crying to the contrary only illustrates those so engaged are still in denial.
It's been two decades. Get over it. Move on.

 

[LibertyKid]

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is a very important document, shows what the Founding Fathers were thinking.

Also shows that "bear arms" meant "militia duty" or "render military service" and not "I want to walk around with my gun wherever I like".

Did you post the right link. The conversation you posted is about not forcing those, whom for religious purposes or beliefs, will not be forced to pick up arms.

 

[LibertyKid]

Correct.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes.

Whining and crying to the contrary only illustrates those so engaged are still in denial.
It's been two decades. Get over it. Move on.

Still notice the lack of participation in this thread?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still notice the lack of participation in this thread?

When you get past their talking points, they...
1: Go silent
2: Double down on nonsense

 

[Winston]

Did you post the right link. The conversation you posted is about not forcing those, whom for religious purposes or beliefs, will not be forced to pick up arms.

That is the historical connotation of the second amendment debate during the second Continental Congress. They debated quit profusely over protecting an individuals right NOT to bear arms, I challenge anyone to post from the actual record of the debates a single mention of the right to bear arms for individual self-defense.

<a href="/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html">Journals of the Continental Congress</a> -- Navigator

There you go, have at it. The reality is, that for over two hundred years, the right to bear arms was linked to service in a militia. There never was a right to bear arms for individual self-defense until Heller. History is replete with examples of states, local governments, and even the federal government either limiting the right to bear arms or outright banning certain weapons. Most famous, the shoot-out at OK Corral, which was the result of efforts of the Earp brothers and Doc Holliday seeking to, wait for it, confiscate guns.

In the 19th century, states and localities passed gun ordinances—laws against concealed carry, or laws that disallowed guns in city limits—while the federal government remained silent on gun control. In the 20th century, under FDR, bills imposing measures of federal gun control passed with public support and were upheld by the Supreme Court

Automatic for the People

Armed militias were essential to the creation of America. But times have changed, and so has the firepower.

www.topic.com

The whole image of the Colonial American toting around a gun for his own self-defense, or even brandishing one in the wilderness to attain his nourishment by hunting is precisely that, a damn myth. Guns were exceedingly expensive, and prior to the Kentucky long rifle, very inaccurate. The colonists were terrible hunters, multiple "starving times" while living in an area teeming with wildlife, some hunters. About the only way most colonists used guns to attain food was trading them with the Native Americans.

 

[Bell Huey]

That is the historical connotation of the second amendment debate during the second Continental Congress. They debated quit profusely over protecting an individuals right NOT to bear arms, I challenge anyone to post from the actual record of the debates a single mention of the right to bear arms for individual self-defense.

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:mad:field(DOCID+@lit(jc034T000)):

There you go, have at it. The reality is, that for over two hundred years, the right to bear arms was linked to service in a militia. There never was a right to bear arms for individual self-defense until Heller. History is replete with examples of states, local governments, and even the federal government either limiting the right to bear arms or outright banning certain weapons. Most famous, the shoot-out at OK Corral, which was the result of efforts of the Earp brothers and Doc Holliday seeking to, wait for it, confiscate guns.

In the 19th century, states and localities passed gun ordinances—laws against concealed carry, or laws that disallowed guns in city limits—while the federal government remained silent on gun control. In the 20th century, under FDR, bills imposing measures of federal gun control passed with public support and were upheld by the Supreme Court

Automatic for the People

Armed militias were essential to the creation of America. But times have changed, and so has the firepower.

www.topic.com

The whole image of the Colonial American toting around a gun for his own self-defense, or even brandishing one in the wilderness to attain his nourishment by hunting is precisely that, a damn myth. Guns were exceedingly expensive, and prior to the Kentucky long rifle, very inaccurate. The colonists were terrible hunters, multiple "starving times" while living in an area teeming with wildlife, some hunters. About the only way most colonists used guns to attain food was trading them with the Native Americans.

And yet Madison as President followed By Monroe, funded research into the mass producing repeating rifles so the average guy could afford one.

Firearms Technology and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment | David B. Kopel

In 1791 the most common firearms had to be reloaded after every shot, though more expensive repeating arms were still available, and had been for more than a century. James Madison, the author of the Second Amendment, was instrumental in jumpstarting firearms technology development.

fee.org

 

[LibertyKid]

That is the historical connotation of the second amendment debate during the second Continental Congress. They debated quit profusely over protecting an individuals right NOT to bear arms, I challenge anyone to post from the actual record of the debates a single mention of the right to bear arms for individual self-defense.

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:mad:field(DOCID+@lit(jc034T000)):

There you go, have at it. The reality is, that for over two hundred years, the right to bear arms was linked to service in a militia. There never was a right to bear arms for individual self-defense until Heller. History is replete with examples of states, local governments, and even the federal government either limiting the right to bear arms or outright banning certain weapons. Most famous, the shoot-out at OK Corral, which was the result of efforts of the Earp brothers and Doc Holliday seeking to, wait for it, confiscate guns.

In the 19th century, states and localities passed gun ordinances—laws against concealed carry, or laws that disallowed guns in city limits—while the federal government remained silent on gun control. In the 20th century, under FDR, bills imposing measures of federal gun control passed with public support and were upheld by the Supreme Court

Automatic for the People

Armed militias were essential to the creation of America. But times have changed, and so has the firepower.

www.topic.com

The whole image of the Colonial American toting around a gun for his own self-defense, or even brandishing one in the wilderness to attain his nourishment by hunting is precisely that, a damn myth. Guns were exceedingly expensive, and prior to the Kentucky long rifle, very inaccurate. The colonists were terrible hunters, multiple "starving times" while living in an area teeming with wildlife, some hunters. About the only way most colonists used guns to attain food was trading them with the Native Americans.

You're incorrect. I'm just going to repost my original post.
Important Notes to Consider:

• The mistrust of "Standing Armies" - States wanted to arm the people, who would form militias to protect themselves if needed instead of a Gov't Sponsored (standing) army.
• This mistrust came from the British controlled miltary
• Standing armies were perceived to be dangerous to Liberty
• Pennsylvania Declaration of Independence states:
  
  • That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
• Massachusetts:s DOR: T
  • The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.7
• Original 2A Wording:
  • The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
  • Wording was changed to recognize that militias came from the people,

Founding Fathers distrust of a centralized government backed miltary:

Teachinghistory.org

In Summary: The people were meant to be armed. Militias were not "standing armies", but would only be needed when the time came. Therefore, the people had a right to bear arms, at all times.
Keep trying to use whatever gymnastics you need to tell people the 2A wasn't meant to arm the citizens.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In Summary: The people were meant to be armed.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." makes that pretty clear.
The people.
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia.
The people.
No one has the right to be in the militia so the right to keep and bear arms cannot be tied to service in the militia.

It's really that simple.

 

[Winston]

You're incorrect. I'm just going to repost my original post.
Important Notes to Consider:

• The mistrust of "Standing Armies" - States wanted to arm the people, who would form militias to protect themselves if needed instead of a Gov't Sponsored (standing) army.
• This mistrust came from the British controlled miltary
• Standing armies were perceived to be dangerous to Liberty
• Pennsylvania Declaration of Independence states:
  
  • That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
• Massachusetts:s DOR: T
  • The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.7
• Original 2A Wording:
  • The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
  • Wording was changed to recognize that militias came from the people,

Founding Fathers distrust of a centralized government backed miltary:

Teachinghistory.org

In Summary: The people were meant to be armed. Militias were not "standing armies", but would only be needed when the time came. Therefore, the people had a right to bear arms, at all times.
Keep trying to use whatever gymnastics you need to tell people the 2A wasn't meant to arm the citizens.

Not really sure what you are trying to accomplish here. The second amendment is most certainly based on the founder's distrust, and strong opposition to, a standing army. But is a leap too far to conclude that means everyone can have any weapon. And although the Pennsylvania constitution does mention the protection of self, that was not part of the Federal constitution.

Why did Paul Revere ride? What was the purpose? Where were the British headed as they passed through Lexington enroute to Concord?

Hell, if all the colonists had their loaded guns under their bed Paul Revere could have stayed home and got a good night's sleep. No one would have had to climb up that belltower and hang a lantern or two. The reality is, in Massachusetts, like most states, storing "arms" in the home was frowned upon and in some cases, outright banned. They could be taken by Native American raiders and then turned on the colonists. Arms were kept in the armory, and that was precisely where the British were headed on that April morning.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Did you post the right link. The conversation you posted is about not forcing those, whom for religious purposes or beliefs, will not be forced to pick up arms.

Yes, I posted the right link. Clearly the HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT and the Founding Fathers TALKING ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT are one and the same.

Literally, in this document, they use the term "bear arms", "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously.
If you're SERIOUS about this topic, you'll know that this document is A) very important and B) gun rights people hate it and ignore it at will.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That is the historical connotation of the second amendment debate during the second Continental Congress. They debated quit profusely over protecting an individuals right NOT to bear arms, I challenge anyone to post from the actual record of the debates a single mention of the right to bear arms for individual self-defense.

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:mad:field(DOCID+@lit(jc034T000)):

There you go, have at it. The reality is, that for over two hundred years, the right to bear arms was linked to service in a militia. There never was a right to bear arms for individual self-defense until Heller. History is replete with examples of states, local governments, and even the federal government either limiting the right to bear arms or outright banning certain weapons. Most famous, the shoot-out at OK Corral, which was the result of efforts of the Earp brothers and Doc Holliday seeking to, wait for it, confiscate guns.

In the 19th century, states and localities passed gun ordinances—laws against concealed carry, or laws that disallowed guns in city limits—while the federal government remained silent on gun control. In the 20th century, under FDR, bills imposing measures of federal gun control passed with public support and were upheld by the Supreme Court

Automatic for the People

Armed militias were essential to the creation of America. But times have changed, and so has the firepower.

www.topic.com

The whole image of the Colonial American toting around a gun for his own self-defense, or even brandishing one in the wilderness to attain his nourishment by hunting is precisely that, a damn myth. Guns were exceedingly expensive, and prior to the Kentucky long rifle, very inaccurate. The colonists were terrible hunters, multiple "starving times" while living in an area teeming with wildlife, some hunters. About the only way most colonists used guns to attain food was trading them with the Native Americans.

Yep, they didn't talk about an individual right to self defense, there is one, but it's not from the Second Amendment.

As I've posted before (and got told it wasn't relevant) there's the debate in the House (Senate debates were secret)

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

The clause they were talking about
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

They went back and forwards over whether the 2A should have "shall be compelled to bear arms" and "shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Clearly they used "render military service" and "bear arms" as synonyms.

Mr Gerry said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples,"

Clearly he's using "militia duty" synonymously with "render military service" and "bear arms".

No Personal self defense here.
In fact, this doesn't appear for quite a while in state constitutions.

"1776 North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State;"
There's the right to "bear arms", or "render military service" or "militia duty" to defend the state. Nothing else here.

Similar is "1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."
"common defence" is the same as the defense of the state, though could mean that if Injuns attacked a settlement, the settlement could defend itself, for example.

Then you have:

"1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;"

You have "defence of... the state" but also "defence of themselves". Notice the plural in "themselves" English grammar is a little vague on the plural and singular of "themselves", because "them" is plural, but can be singular. Do we say "themself"? Are we referring to all the individuals here as individuals, or as a collective as in "common defence"?

"1796 Tennessee: That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."
Even 20 years later they were still making clauses that talked about "common defence", here you see "their common defence", clearly the "their" is similar to "themselves" but clearer grammatically.

"1817 Mississippi: Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State."
Now we're 40 years later and we're seeing individualness. "defence of himself" as opposed to "themselves". I don't think this is just a casual thing, Mississippi is suddenly changing things to something more akin to the individual.

Connecticut did the same thing the year later. Alabama another year on.

Clearly the historical context for the Second Amendment is one where the protection for guns is all about common defense. Not about individual self defense. No state had such a clause at the time, it took 40 years for that to come about, the debates in Congress were about protecting the militia:
"What, sir, is the use of a militia?" Mr Gerry said. He didn't say "what use are guns?"