The Founding Fathers Explain The Second Amendment

[M14 Shooter]

The Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant lawful self-defense –

... among other things.
Why do you always leave out the "amoing other things"?

 

[M14 Shooter]

‘Progressives’ take no issue with the Second Amendment; they support current Second Amendment jurisprudence as codified in Heller and McDonald.

This is an abject and outright lie.
Liberals and progressives continue to push for unnecessary anf ineffective restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, not the least of which is a ban on certain "bearable arms " - indeed a great man of them want to repeas the 2nd in its entirety.

Why do you lie like this?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Insurrectionism is preposterous because the notion that untrained civilians with semi-automatic small arms could ‘overthrow’ a government defended by the modern US military is as ridiculous as it is wrong.

Tell us about Afghanistan, August 2021.

 

[woodwork201]

There may be some reasonable restrictions states and cities can make, but clearly the 2nd amendment was about banning any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms.

That's the mistake many make. The Founders demonstrated that they were able to be quite clear about which parts of the Constitution affected only the Federal Government and which were to apply to all government.

The First Amendment, for instance, says that Congress shall make no law. See, that actually only targeted the Federal Government. So, do you understand that, originally, they explicitly intended not to forbid the States from abridging free speech?

Then, in the Second Amendment, there was no such mention of Congress. It clearly was intended, from the start, to apply to the States. Inside the United States, it was their intention, the right to keep and bear arms could not be infringed.

 

[Rigby5]

‘Progressives’ also correctly understand the fact that nowhere in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment does the Constitution ‘authorize’ the overthrow through force of arms of a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people.

That is a totally incorrect assumption because obviously this country was founded on the overthrow by force of arms of the legal government that was NOT reflecting the will of the people. All governments, whether originally legal or not, become corrupt, fail to follow the will of the people, and eventually MUST be overthrown by force.
There never has nor ever will be an exception to that.
All governments must at some time be overthrown.

 

[Rigby5]

Insurrectionism is preposterous because the notion that untrained civilians with semi-automatic small arms could ‘overthrow’ a government defended by the modern US military is as ridiculous as it is wrong.

That is silly.
First of all, there are not supposed to be any "untrained civilians", in that all should learn the ways of arms.
Second is that no military can ever normally win against a whole determined civilian population, because the military is out numbered 1000 to 1.
And that is if any military would even try to stand against the population, since most of the military would likely sympathize and join the insurrection against an evil government.

The US military has never won against a determined insurgency, like Vietnam, the Philippines, Afghanistan, etc.

 

[danielpalos]

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

“I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

“To disarm the people…s the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” – George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788















“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” – James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” – William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “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, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.” – Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” – Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” – Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

“For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787















“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

“f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” – Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

The Founding Fathers Explain The Second Amendment

The Founding Fathers Explain The Second Amendment: This Says it ALL

thefederalistpapers.org

Case closed Progs.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[Rigby5]

That's the mistake many make. The Founders demonstrated that they were able to be quite clear about which parts of the Constitution affected only the Federal Government and which were to apply to all government.

The First Amendment, for instance, says that Congress shall make no law. See, that actually only targeted the Federal Government. So, do you understand that, originally, they explicitly intended not to forbid the States from abridging free speech?

Then, in the Second Amendment, there was no such mention of Congress. It clearly was intended, from the start, to apply to the States. Inside the United States, it was their intention, the right to keep and bear arms could not be infringed.

I tend to agree since it says, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".
But what does "infringed" mean?
For example, some reasonable restrictions, such as legislating a minimum age, does not have to be infringing, as long as it is state and not federal?
Personally I think the founders did want juveniles to be able to access firearms in an emergency, but likely not bearing arms all the time.

 

[Rigby5]

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Yes, but the providing for the organized militia in no way implies the organized militia was the main need, use, and right of defense with firearms.
The 4th and 5th amendment are clear about the right of an individual to be secure on his life, home, and property.
And there would be no way to do that if some how individual weapons ownership could be curtailed.
Any unreasonable limit on weapons ownership would clearly break the whole concept of a democratic republic, where all rights emanate from the inherent rights of individuals.
The police and military for example, can NOT get their authority to be armed from government, because government is no source of any authority at all.
The police and military only can be armed because they can borrow our right to be armed as long as they are defending us, and we delegate.
But if we did not have that right to armed, then we could not delegate it to the police and military, so then they could not be armed either.
We are not at the bottom of the rights chain, but at the top.

 

[westwall]

Wrong.

This fails as an appeal to authority fallacy.

It was the original intent of the Framers that the Supreme Court determine the meaning of the Constitution – the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant lawful self-defense – having nothing to do with ‘preserving liberty,’ or ‘fighting tyranny,’ or preventing ‘government excess or overreach.’

Insurrectionist dogma is devoid of legal, Constitutional merit and soundly rejected by the Heller Court.

Fuck off you fascist piece of shit. These are the MEN that wrote the document you twerp. Their pinky fingers were smarter than you'll ever be.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong.

This fails as an appeal to authority fallacy.

It was the original intent of the Framers that the Supreme Court determine the meaning of the Constitution – the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant lawful self-defense – having nothing to do with ‘preserving liberty,’ or ‘fighting tyranny,’ or preventing ‘government excess or overreach.’

Insurrectionist dogma is devoid of legal, Constitutional merit and soundly rejected by the Heller Court.

Not at all true.
The point of the whole Bill of Rights was to try to reassure the states that the federal government would not become abusive.
So it was not at all interested in listing individual rights, even if they strongly believed in them.
Instead, the entire and sole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to set hard limits on federal jurisdiction.
And that absolutely had to do with preserving liberty, fighting tyranny, and preventing federal excess or overreach.
We have all read the Founders, and they clearly say that is the entire purpose of the whole Bill of Rights.

The Heller ruling comes from the 14th amendment instead, which has an entirely different objective, which is protecting individual rights from state abuse.

 

[danielpalos]

I tend to agree since it says, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".
But what does "infringed" mean?
For example, some reasonable restrictions, such as legislating a minimum age, does not have to be infringing, as long as it is state and not federal?
Personally I think the founders did want juveniles to be able to access firearms in an emergency, but likely not bearing arms all the time.

The People are the Militia; you are either organized and Well Regulated or unorganized and subject to the police power of a State.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, but the providing for the organized militia in no way implies the organized militia was the main need, use, and right of defense with firearms.
The 4th and 5th amendment are clear about the right of an individual to be secure on his life, home, and property.
And there would be no way to do that if some how individual weapons ownership could be curtailed.
Any unreasonable limit on weapons ownership would clearly break the whole concept of a democratic republic, where all rights emanate from the inherent rights of individuals.
The police and military for example, can NOT get their authority to be armed from government, because government is no source of any authority at all.
The police and military only can be armed because they can borrow our right to be armed as long as they are defending us, and we delegate.
But if we did not have that right to armed, then we could not delegate it to the police and military, so then they could not be armed either.
We are not at the bottom of the rights chain, but at the top.

The point is, well regulated militia are Necessary to the security of a free State and have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The unorganized militia, as Individual persons of the People, are subject to the police power of their State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

 

[Rigby5]

The People are the Militia; you are either organized and Well Regulated or unorganized and subject to the police power of a State.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

That is fine.
The police power of a State comes from the need to balance between the inherent rights of all the individuals in the State.
That still leaves what "infringe" means, but I think it is appropriate for the federal constitution to leave that for each state to decide on their own.
No argument from me from what you wrote so far.

 

[Rigby5]

The point is, well regulated militia are Necessary to the security of a free State and have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The unorganized militia, as Individual persons of the People, are subject to the police power of their State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

Seems you are just repeating, and more personal interpretation would be nice.
But if I take your intent as being that the fed 2nd amendment restricts fed infringement, and the state article is what restricts state infringement, then I would agree.

That is pretty straight forward division of jurisdictions.

The confusing part for most people, comes with the 14th amendment, where the courts can use federal law, (or anything else), to help discover what individual right may be, that the courts can then use to protect individual rights from federal, state, or municipal infringement?
That leads to the messy and unpleasant task of court making legislation in effect, but I think that is just how it has to be, since real law can never be confined only to legislative statutes. That is because rights are infinite and mere legislation can never hope to specify more than a small fraction of the totality of what is law, in the abstract.

 

[danielpalos]

That is fine.
The police power of a State comes from the need to balance between the inherent rights of all the individuals in the State.
That still leaves what "infringe" means, but I think it is appropriate for the federal constitution to leave that for each state to decide on their own.
No argument from me from what you wrote so far.

Individuals of the People may be Infringed by the police power of a State; only well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. It should be a self-evident Truth.

 

[danielpalos]

Seems you are just repeating, and more personal interpretation would be nice.
But if I take your intent as being that the fed 2nd amendment restricts fed infringement, and the state article is what restricts state infringement, then I would agree.

That is pretty straight forward division of jurisdictions.

The confusing part for most people, comes with the 14th amendment, where the courts can use federal law, (or anything else), to help discover what individual right may be, that the courts can then use to protect individual rights from federal, state, or municipal infringement?
That leads to the messy and unpleasant task of court making legislation in effect, but I think that is just how it has to be, since real law can never be confined only to legislative statutes. That is because rights are infinite and mere legislation can never hope to specify more than a small fraction of the totality of what is law, in the abstract.

Individuals of the unorganized militia may be Infringed by the police power of a State: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

Well regulated militia (of the People) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[Rigby5]

Individuals of the People may be Infringed by the police power of a State; only well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. It should be a self-evident Truth.

I would like to agree with you, but you keep making such strange statements, its hard to tell.
Like you seem to be implying the police power of a State comes from the State, and it doesn't.
All legal authority can only come from one place, which is the inherent rights of individuals.
All the police power of a State is, is the ability of the people to delegate some of their inherent authority to those paid representatives we hire to protect our rights for us.
So the individual right to be armed comes from the same source as the individual right to be safe from the irresponsible use of arms by others.
So one is not superior to the other, and then some reasonable compromise between rights has to be worked out.

Whether people are organized or unorganized makes no difference.
Being organized does not ensure they are safer or more responsible.
For example, the Gestapo, southern plantation owners, and Mafia were all highly organized, and that did not make them any more trustworthy.

Does a single individual have a right to go against the whole organized, delegated, system of government?
Of course they do if the government is in error.
Such as the Dred Scott Decision.
That decision obviously was totally wrong and made anyone who upheld it, a criminal by any measure.

 

[Rigby5]

Individuals of the unorganized militia may be Infringed by the police power of a State: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

Well regulated militia (of the People) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

But the point of the 14th amendment was that the courts and the federal government also after the 14th was ratified, to prevent any government from infringing, (undo abuse), or any individual right.

So then the only way the 2nd amendment is used by the 14 is the theory that if a right is so important that the feds are to be denied infringement, then likely the states should also be denied infringement.
So your referencing the introductory clause about organized or not, is inappropriate.
The need to implement the 14th amendment does not at all care what the original intent of the 2nd amendment was.
The need to implement the 14th amendment is using the "Pneumbra Effect", attempting to hunt for individual rights that might be accidentally revealed only by their shadow, in other documents, like the 2nd amendment.
It is an indirect inference, not explicitly stated or intended to be stated.

 

[danielpalos]

I would like to agree with you, but you keep making such strange statements, its hard to tell.
Like you seem to be implying the police power of a State comes from the State, and it doesn't.
All legal authority can only come from one place, which is the inherent rights of individuals.
All the police power of a State is, is the ability of the people to delegate some of their inherent authority to those paid representatives we hire to protect our rights for us.
So the individual right to be armed comes from the same source as the individual right to be safe from the irresponsible use of arms by others.
So one is not superior to the other, and then some reasonable compromise between rights has to be worked out.

Whether people are organized or unorganized makes no difference.
Being organized does not ensure they are safer or more responsible.
For example, the Gestapo, southern plantation owners, and Mafia were all highly organized, and that did not make them any more trustworthy.

Does a single individual have a right to go against the whole organized, delegated, system of government?
Of course they do if the government is in error.
Such as the Dred Scott Decision.
That decision obviously was totally wrong and made anyone who upheld it, a criminal by any measure.

It only seems strange if you appeal to ignorance of the law. I understand that Legal Authority is Delegated to the State and no longer reserved as a right of Individuals when there is conflict (with certain exceptions). It is Why, the Judicial branch is delegated the judicial power and not Individuals.

The police power has its origin and purpose in the general welfare of the state or, as it is sometimes expressed, the public health, public morals, and public safety. The government may properly exercise its police powers to regulate land use as well.--https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/police_powers

Thus, yes, it makes all the difference in the world whether or not the People are organized or unorganized. Our Second Amendment is clear. Well regulated militia of the People being Necessary to the security of a free State may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The unorganized militia, as Individuals, are subject to the police power of a State; this is a self-evident Truth since gun control regulations are part of that police power. Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

Your view merely appeals to ignorance of express law. You confuse our First Amendment with our Second Amendment. Context is everything. There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment and the People are the Militia for that purpose.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788