When the 2nd Amendment was written....

[LibertyKid]

They're not right when they rule in my favor; they're wrong when they concluded that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect private household ownership of firearms as though it were a widely-recognized unalienable right.



That they indeed do say, but I am hoping that at some point, popular opinion will shift and that there will be more attention on just how many bad decisions like this the Court has rendered the last 10-20 years.

The 2A's primary purpose is to keep the gov't in check and from becoming tyrannical. The founding fathers knew the best way to do so was to ensure the citizenry was armed. Personal protection is the secondary right that comes from the 2A. This is also codified in various state constitutions as well the right for the citizens to bear arms without a militia clause.

The founding fathers knew that that the previous monarchy used loyal militias to disarm citizens. The English attempted this prior to the Revolution. This is why the founding fathers sought a means that keeps the gov't in check in case it ever went tits up and doesn't server the people any more.

By taking away the right or limiting the ability of the people to remove a gov't that has no longer serves the constitution and the people, you remove the one tool that keeps the people free from Gov't. Read the following article and you will see. how the framing of the 2A has deep historical context and the purpose of protecting the people from the gov't.

The below link is just the start on understanding the history around the 2A.

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

 

[woodwork201]

How did they limit guns?

You're kidding, right? The Revolution was not about taxes on tea, it was about gun confiscation. Here's just one example of the British disarming the colonists.

'The Arms of All The People Should Be Taken Away' | Stephen P. Halbrook

As we celebrate the Bicentennial of the Bill of Rights, evidence has been discovered that shows the Second Amendment was prompted by British plans to disarm each and every American. In 1777, William Knox, Under Secretary of State in the British colonial Office, circulated a proposal entitled...

www.independent.org

"But the single breach of the capitulation with them [the people of Boston], after they had religiously fulfilled their part, must brand your name and memory with eternal infamy—the proposal came from you to the inhabitants by the medium of one of your officers, through the Selectmen, and was, that if the inhabitants would deposit their fire-arms in the hands of the Selectmen, to be returned to them after a reasonable time, you would give leave to the inhabitants to remove out of town with all their effects, without any let or molestation. The town punctually complied, and you remain an infamous monument of perfidy, for which an Arab, Wild Tartar of Savage would despise you!!! "

 

[woodwork201]

/-----/ Captain Caveman marked my post about the Puckle gun as fake news. I'd wonder if he could prove me wrong.

Oh, oh., oh, Mr. Kotter.. waving my hand.. pick me..

I know the answer to your question. No; Captain Caveman can not prove you wrong. That would be impossible because you are not wrong.

 

[multivita-man]

The 2A's primary purpose is to keep the gov't in check and from becoming tyrannical.

That's partially correct. They were wary of standing armies, true.

But that's not really the primary reason for the 2nd Amendment. You have to read the history of the time, particularly the Federalist Papers (Federalist 29, for example), and you have to read the debates and discussion in Congress in 1789.

One concern was that at least one state, Pennsylvania, didn't have a state militia to contribute to the national defense. Moreover, settlers in Western Pennsylvania had to fend for themselves when they were attacked by Native tribes.

The lack of a requirement for state-level militias also tied into another concern, which is that not all states had repaid their war debts from the Revolution. States that were paid up considered those that weren't free-loaders. They wanted to discourage future free-loading in part by guaranteeing that each state would allow the formation of well-regulated militias. Not coincidentally, this took place about the time the militia acts were written into federal law.

 

[LibertyKid]

That's partially correct. They were wary of standing armies, true.

But that's not really the primary reason for the 2nd Amendment. You have to read the history of the time, particularly the Federalist Papers (Federalist 29, for example), and you have to read the debates and discussion in Congress in 1789.

One concern was that at least one state, Pennsylvania, didn't have a state militia to contribute to the national defense. Moreover, settlers in Western Pennsylvania had to fend for themselves when they were attacked by Native tribes.

The lack of a requirement for state-level militias also tied into another concern, which is that not all states had repaid their war debts from the Revolution. States that were paid up considered those that weren't free-loaders. They wanted to discourage future free-loading in part by guaranteeing that each state would allow the formation of well-regulated militias. Not coincidentally, this took place about the time the militia acts were written into federal law.

Hamilton is arguing for a national defense verses state militias in 29 and requiring some gathering for training for militias (I don't necessarily disagree with that). The argument is state militias or a federally run gov't army. The concern still remains the same, regardless of how that argument ended up 200+ years later. The people, in the time of despotism and tyranny, have the right to remove such a gov't. The question then is how? Do we trust a tyrannical gov't to let us vote them out? Asking politely? We all know where this leads, and the forefathers knew the inevitable outcome as well.

To remove the capacity of the people to remove a tyrannical gov't by force is antithesis to the founding fathers were forming. To remove such capacity, is to remove liberty and freedom from the people and to give all hope, trust, faith, liberty and freedoms to a gov't which is the antithesis to the formation of our country.