# Founding Fathers influencing today's politics **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 28, 2019, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345 "2019-08-28T06:48:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/201 "2019-09-05T18:28:27Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > By reading what they actually wrote, \*all \*of it and in context, and not by denial or handwaving if we don’t like what it says or doesn’t say. I credit myself with having read more than the average person on constitutional issues. Including works by the founding fathers. But I don’t recall the works you appear to be referring to. Do you have any recommendations that will give insight into what the founders meant by the Second Amendment? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It \*was \*accepted as clear for most of our history. What changed, and why? I think it was mostly technological development. Guns used to mean one shot muskets. Issues like concealed carrying and mass shooting didn’t exist as a possibility. There also weren’t any major corporations that had a vested interest in the sales of firearms. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/202 "2019-09-05T18:35:27Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > If people saw the government actually becoming tyrannical more people would get guns and learn how to use them. The purpose of the second amendment is to allow that to happen. That is not really the purpose of the Second Amendment. It’s also not at all a realistic assessment of what people would do if the government became tyrannical. Many if not most gun owners would support a dictatorship. Dictatorships don’t arise in opposition to all the people. They almost always have lots of support. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/203 "2019-09-05T19:13:52Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > As stated by George Mason, the militia is everyone who doesn’t work for the government. A militia is a group of people that organizes militarily for a short period and then disbands when the threat is over. A militia can be organized by a city, state, or a private citizen. > The function is to fight battles for the country when the need arises. > The founding fathers were skeptical of standing armies and saw the need for an armed populace to serve as a militia in case the government ever became tyrannical and used an army to oppress the citizenry. > As to whether the militia is currently well regulated, probably about one third of Americans own guns and even fewer know how to use them but over 100 million armed citizens is a formidable force. If people saw the government actually becoming tyrannical more people would get guns and learn how to use them. The purpose of the second amendment is to allow that to happen. But how is this related to the Second Amendment? If the purpose of the amendment is to create a pooled of people who can be called upon for militia duty, then it’s not being followed. I theoretically belong to this militia force. But I don’t own a gun so I wouldn’t be able to show up armed and ready to fight. I’ve never participating in any militia training. And I’m unaware of any procedure that would contact me and tell me when and where to show up at. And you seem unclear about what the purpose of this militia is. Is it supposed to defend the government or attack the government? What happens if a group of people decide the government has become tyrannical and they band together to overthrow it. And then the government responds to the threat of being overthrown by notifying the people in the group that they’re being called into service to defend the government from being overthrown. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/204 "2019-09-05T19:18:47Z")
And let me address to you similar questions I asked Shodan. If the purpose of the second amendment is to support a militia, do people who are unable to serve in a militia (like disabled people) have the right to keep and bear arms? Are weapons that aren’t useful for militia use covered by the second amendment? If the government decides that it has enough people to man the militia as needed, can it tell the rest of the people that they can’t own a gun? Can a person opt out of militia service and if they do so, do they forfeit their right to own a gun? Can the government store weapons at some central location and then issue them as needed when the militia is activated? Can the government require people to store their militia weapons at home when they’re not using them for militia service? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/205 "2019-09-05T19:28:08Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > It is endlessly fascinating to me that so many Republicans are hard core for the people having guns to defend themselves from the government, but at the same time are huge boosters of the United States having a gigantic standing army and controlling the state militias. If you brought the Founding Fathers to today and they saw that, they would think they’d failed; they thought a massive standing army a huge threat to liberty. They would rush back to 1789 and alter the Constitution to prevent that. I find it interesting how people who oppose any form of gun control say we should respond to mass shootings in public places by having more armed police assigned to these area. How is having armed uniformed government agents stationed on our streets, in our public meeting places, in our businesses, in our schools, and in our transportation centers not conducive to establishing a tyranny? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/206 "2019-09-05T20:29:29Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I find it interesting how people who oppose any form of gun control say we should respond to mass shootings in public places by having more armed police assigned to these area. How is having armed uniformed government agents stationed on our streets, in our public meeting places, in our businesses, in our schools, and in our transportation centers not conducive to establishing a tyranny? It rather obviously is. It’s just about a love of guns. The problems with creeping tyranny are otherwise NEVER mentioned by 2A enthusiasts. You will never see a Fox News talking ahead complain about the huge standing army, militarized police, voter suppression, corporate oligarchy, or any number of other things that have a negative effect on a republican form of democracy. It’s only guns. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/207 "2019-09-05T20:57:49Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > It rather obviously is. > > It’s just about a love of guns. … A lot. Some people need to hunt. Others do it for sport- there are several Olympic events with guns, you know. Many just have one gun for protection. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/208 "2019-09-05T22:29:41Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > I’d rather not, if it’s all the same to you. But you are at least the second person in this thread, who is clearly a gun rights advocate, who has impressed the duty of lobbying for a ‘functional citizen militia’ on someone who is clearly opposed to the idea of immutable gun rights. So I put the question back to you and yours: Why have you not lobbied the congress to re-instate a well-regulated militia in line with the letter and spirit of the 2nd A of the Constitution? Why would I do that? I don’t need any militia attachment or association to exercise the right to arms. The only entities that are impacted or damaged from the lack of a citizen militia are the state or federal governments. The entities that should have complained are state governments since their self defense and ability to keep civil order during emergencies is what is being impacted. That there wasn’t a huge uproar from the states about the Dick Act, and legal action with them as the plaintiffs claiming the immunities of the 2nd Amendment, sure does belie the “state’s right” perversion inserted in the federal courts in 1942, in _Cases v U.S_. Reality of course is that the “state’s right” theory was dead before it was hatched; the Dick Act became law in 1903 and the final nail in state militia powers’ coffin was driven in 1916 with the National Defense Act. When Congress chose to obliterate state militia powers, they did give the states lovely parting gifts of “State Defensive Forces” that the states would fund and organize according to laws and regulations they establish. Neither State Defensive Forces nor the federalized State Guard are Art I, §8, cl’s 15 & 16 militia, both are authorized under, and what’s now the National Guard is organized and provided for under Art I, §8, cl’s 12 & 14. There is no “letter” of the 2ndA to be obeyed by the people; as SCOTUS has said, “_[t]his is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government_”. It is absurd to argue that the 2nd Amendment creates nebulous government defined demands upon “the People”, when “the People” are who the 2ndA was enacted to protect _from federal government powers_. The “spirit” of the 2nd Amendment is that it does not really “do” anything at all but redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted. It simply reminds government that it can’t do what it was never _ **allowed** _ to do . . . IOW, “We the People” don’t possess the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment is there; “We the People” possess the right because “We the People” never granted to the federal government, any power that would allow it to infringe, to permit any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen. The federal and state governments certainly did have an interest in the _one gun_ a citizen who was liable to perform militia duty and enrolled in their militia, chose to muster with when called. That’s where the government interest, oversight and control begins, and _ends_. And that interest existed and was enforceable from powers emanating from Art I, §8, cl’s 15 & 16, not the 2nd Amendment. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > As well it should! But since neither thoughts nor prayers are likely to have any effect on bringing about such a fantastic occurrence, that frees us up to continue to lobby for socio-political change with respect to gun laws. How does the realization that actually following the process set-out in the Constitution (to modify the Constitution to _allow_ government to restrict the right to arms) is a false hope, . . . morph into “freeing you up” to use other means to limit or restrain a pre-existing, fundamental right of the people that is recognized and secured in the Constitution? . ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/209 "2019-09-05T22:37:43Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > As long as we’re reading the minds of the Founders, they’d be horrified at the destructive capacity of modern small arms, and horrified as to the prevalence and body count of mass shootings in America. And probably also horrified by race-mixing, gay people in public, and the way young people dress. Perhaps they would be horrified but they would know that the Constitution they enacted could not in any way, shape or form be construed to empower the \*\*\*federal government \*\*\*to take action against the right of the people to keep and bear arms or to restrict any of those other things. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/210 "2019-09-05T22:48:57Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That’s the problem with originalist arguments. You can say you know what the founding fathers meant but how does anyone really know what somebody else was thinking? All we can know is what they wrote down. And the text of the Second Amendment does not have a single clear meaning. Well, that’s your first mistake . . . Reading the 2nd Amendment with any intent to discern what the right to keep and bear arms is. As SCOTUS has said in boringly consistent fashion, for going on 140+ years, that the right to arms _is not granted by the 2nd Amendment, thus it is not **in any manner dependent** upon the Constitution for its existence_. So, not only is it illegitimate to “interpret” the words of the 2nd to limit the right, it is also illegitimate to say that the right is dependent upon a structure that is itself, _ENTIRELY DEPENDENT UPON THE CONSTITUTION_ for \*\*\*ITS \*\*\*existence – that structure being, the organized, Art I, §8, cl’s 15 & 16 militia. To really learn the full and complete extent and scope of the right to arms, you should be reading the body of the Constitution to see what powers the federal government has been expressly granted to have any interest in the possession and use of the citizen’s personal arms. That’s your answer! ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/211 "2019-09-05T23:16:28Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I think the unorganized militia you’re citing is unorganized to the point of not existing. How can you call something an organization when many of the people who supposedly belong to it aren’t aware they’re members or even that the organization exists? What is the supposed function of this unorganized militia? Who are its leaders? What are the responsibilities that arise from being a member? Who can activate it? And, most germane to the thread topic, how can anyone define this militia as well-regulated? You really twist yourself into the most remarkable pretzels to not understand. Have you ever read [**Federalist 29**](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp)? That explains what the Art I, §8, cl’s 15 & 16 federal powers were to be, over what was obviously then, the “unorganized militia” and tries to allay fears about granting the new federal government these powers. It explains the benefits and the significant drawbacks of actually demanding the unorganized militia to be taken from their avocations and families to undergo the necessary training and military exercise. This training was recognized to be quite a significant inconvenience if it was to actually have the corps attain the degree of expertness in military exercise that would allow them to earn the accolade of “well regulated militia”. It explains so much of what you are confused about and does it without the 2nd Amendment even being there, compounding your confusion. Give it a read, that is if you are actually interested in having your confusion relieved. . ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/212 "2019-09-05T23:26:47Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Are you seriously endorsing the argument that people who own guns are part of the “Unorganized militia”? I gotta be honest, I sure hope you are. Well, gun owners could be said to be better situated to become organized militia but owning a gun is not a requirement of being considered militia (either organized or unorganized). Under the Militia Act of 1792, you needed to be an able-bodied White male citizen between 18 and 45 years old to be “in” the militia. Six months after enrollment and being notified of your assignment, you were required to “provide yourself with a good musket or firelock”. Providing yourself with a firearm \*\*\*before \*\*\*you were enrolled and notified or after you aged out, or now, when there is no law that calls on citizens to perform militia duty, would just be an exercise of the right to be armed, not any impressment of real or imagined militia obligation. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/213 "2019-09-05T23:39:37Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That said, can we drop the “Founding Fathers” term? It implies that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were holy prophets of some kind rather than just men who meant well and did their human best, and were guided by God rather than their own experienced understanding of human nature. I don’t get that vibe at all, I’ve always made a distinction between the “founding fathers” and the"framers". The founders set out the reason for independence based on “founding” principles and the framers established the compact based on those principles . . . ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/214 "2019-09-06T00:53:53Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I credit myself with having read more than the average person on constitutional issues. Including works by the founding fathers. You come across as someone who has read other people’s analysis of the writings of the founders. I see you preferring to read Saul Cornell’s _A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America_ and considering it to be an authoritative rendering of the founder’s sentiments, in lieu of reading original sources. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Do you have any recommendations that will give insight into what the founders meant by the Second Amendment? Your positions negate the founders / framers basic understanding of what rights are and contradict what they understood the Bill of Rights was and what it did. I would recommend reading [**Federalist 84**](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed84.asp) and [**Madison’s Introduction of the proposed amendments**](https://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html). Any review of their consideration of what rights were and especially what the dangers were in adding a bill of rights, should divest you of some of your beliefs. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I think it was mostly technological development. Guns used to mean one shot muskets Do you apply your standard to any other protected means for exercising rights? Are only quill pens and Franklin Presses protected means of exercising 1st Amendment rights? > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Issues like concealed carrying Never a 2nd Amendment issue. Setting the manner of carry has always been and I believe will remain a power of the states. That’s not to say that a 2nd Amendment secured right to carry (bear) a gun for self defense in public will not be an federally enforceable right (under the 14th); just that states will be left to decide if they will issue a permit to carry concealed or simply have unrestricted carry (open and/or concealed). > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > There also weren’t any major corporations that had a vested interest in the sales of firearms Well, there was only one corporation making gunpowder in the States in 1775, the Frankford Mill which was down the road from where I lived for 30+ years. It wasn’t making enough for the war effort so we raided the British stores on Bermuda and we made a bunch of Dutch and French merchants rich selling the Revolutionary forces gunpowder made in Europe. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/215 "2019-09-06T02:03:19Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > > [@puddleglum](#): > > > > As stated by George Mason, the militia is everyone who doesn’t work for the government. A militia is a group of people that organizes militarily for a short period and then disbands when the threat is over. A militia can be organized by a city, state, or a private citizen. . . . > > But how is this related to the Second Amendment? If the purpose of the amendment is to create a pooled of people who can be called upon for militia duty, then it’s not being followed. That the “object” of the 2nd Amendment is to _ **perpetuate** _ the general militia concept is uncontested. Nothing needed to be “created”, by the 2nd Amendment, only protected from illegitimate government action. The 2nd Amendment has no militia implications, it has never been inspected to inform or held to direct anything pertaining to militia. In cases deciding militia issues, SCOTUS ignores the 2nd Amendment. For the citizenry, particularly today, there is nothing to “follow” that flows from the 2nd Amendment. When there was a militia duty obligation and rules to “follow” they flowed from Congress exercising its Art I, §8, cl’s 15 & 16 powers, not anything to do with the 2nd Amendment. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I theoretically belong to this militia force. But I don’t own a gun so I wouldn’t be able to show up armed and ready to fight. I’ve never participating in any militia training. And I’m unaware of any procedure that would contact me and tell me when and where to show up at. Correct. Since 1903, Congress has chosen to relieve the citizens from any militia duty obligation. You don’t owe the government anything. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > And you seem unclear about what the purpose of this militia is. Is it supposed to defend the government or attack the government? Well,when the Militia Act was being written it assumed that the governments were acting within their delegated powers and the citizen’s duty was to operate within the regulations that direct the militia. That body of armed citizens was also recognized as being a force to respond and repel illegitimate government action, especially defending states against a out of control national government. [**Federalist 46**](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp) addresses this specifically and it plainly assumes that the federal militia regulations have organized the citizens but circumstances have developed that demand the states defend themselves _using that organization_ against the federal standing army: [INDENT]"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.[/INDENT] So Madison said in a nation of 3.5 million total souls, the armed citizen militia would outnumber the standing army by a factor of 17-20 to 1, and when all those “able to bear arms” (but like you, didn’t own one), are factored in, the ratio is about 25 to 1. Today, those ratios that Madison refer to remain damn close . . . We have 325 million total souls, the active duty and reserve “standing army” military is just under 1% of that, about 2.5 million . . . And to them are “opposed” at least 75 million armed citizens, for a factor of 30 to 1. Hey, we _ **are** _ a bunch of gun nuts! See, the 2nd Amendment is working fine; all that the 2nd Amendment was ever intended to do is just maintain the people’s numerical superiority over the nation’s armed forces. . ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/216 "2019-09-06T02:38:51Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If the purpose of the second amendment is to support a militia, do people who are unable to serve in a militia (like disabled people) have the right to keep and bear arms? Yes, as long as they are not subject to some imposed dispossession after due process. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Are weapons that aren’t useful for militia use covered by the second amendment? There is a long historical standard of prohibiting the possession and use of weapons that are “dangerous and unusual”. Arms that were only used by ruffians and not useful in warfare can be restricted. This is a two pronged test, the arm must be _dangerous_ to the peace and safety of the public _ **AND** _ _not usual_ in civilized warfare. This has been set-down in US law by SCOTUS that arms that can be shown to be part of the ordinary military equipment and of a type that’s use could contribute to the common defense and/or, are in common use by the citizens (at the time of the Court’s inspection) are protected by the 2nd Amendment. This has been the protection criteria since _US v Miller_ (1939) and it was re-affirmed in _Heller_ (2008). > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If the government decides that it has enough people to man the militia as needed, can it tell the rest of the people that they can’t own a gun? No, the right to posses and use a gun is not dependent on any attachment or association with the militia. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Can a person opt out of militia service and if they do so, do they forfeit their right to own a gun? States had penalties for refusing to serve and some states allowed you to pay someone to serve in your stead, but gun dispossession was never part of it. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Can the government store weapons at some central location and then issue them as needed when the militia is activated? Sure. Militia companies were ordered to take a “return of militia” that recorded type of gun and caliber. Militia members were required to supply a small amount of ammo (the powder, balls, patches, flints, cartridges, etc, whatever their particular gun required) The militia company would know then, how many of each gun would be mustering and have on hand enough of those supplies to keep all the guns of the company in operational order and condition. Knowing that not all members would have “provided themselves” with an appropriate gun, it would be expected that some guns would be kept in that same storage. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Can the government require people to store their militia weapons at home when they’re not using them for militia service? Since men who didn’t own a gun were required to “provide themselves” with one, and then they were required to muster with it and the accouterments also required, I think it would be a good bet that they would be keeping their militia arms at home. . ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/217 "2019-09-06T11:03:51Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Do you have any recommendations that will give insight into what the founders meant by the Second Amendment? Start with the rest of the Constitution. Fascinating reading; I highly recommend it. > [@](#): > > I think it was mostly technological development. Guns used to mean one shot muskets. Issues like concealed carrying and mass shooting didn’t exist as a possibility. There also weren’t any major corporations that had a vested interest in the sales of firearms. I was asking about the change in understanding of the 2nd - are you claiming that the mass availability of technology whose purpose is mass killing actually reinforced the claim to an individual right to it? That makes no sense, especially when you consider that the nascent availability of full-auto machine guns quickly led to their virtual ban for civilian use. What \*does \*make sense is that the availability of these “technologies” spawned the desire to possess them, among those so inclined, and that desire was manipulated by the same gun lobby that also invented the individual-rights interpretation. > [@Abatis](#): > > The 2nd Amendment has no militia implications Except for the part that says it does. > [@](#): > > it has never been inspected to inform or held to direct anything pertaining to militia. In cases deciding militia issues, SCOTUS ignores the 2nd Amendment. _Miller_. > [@](#): > > That body of armed citizens was also recognized as being a force to respond and repel illegitimate government action, especially defending states against a out of control national government. That’s pretty rich from somebody who can actually refer to Article 1, Section 8. :rolleyes: Do you really think “suppress” means “enable”? > [@](#): > > See, the 2nd Amendment is working fine; all that the 2nd Amendment was ever intended to do is just maintain the people’s numerical superiority over the nation’s armed forces. Let’s just skip the “How’s that going for ya?” part and go right to the part where you distinguish between “the people” and “the nation”. To wit, Huh? ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/218 "2019-09-06T13:26:38Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Except for the part that says it does. The word’s appearance in the declaratory clause does not mean that it has any legal weight WRT militia, that it directs or controls or mandates any structure or action or condition to exist. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > _Miller_. No, _Miller_ doesn’t say that. _Miller_ didn’t say anything about the man and his militia status; that is a total misreading and misrepresentation. The _Miller_ decision was focused only on the type of gun and whether it had any military / common defense usefulness, having no evidence presented that a sawed-off shotgun did have such usefulness, the Court did not invalidate the NFA’s restrictions on the possession and use of that arm. It didn’t really uphold them, the Court sent the case back down, but, Miller being dead, no more legal action took place. What I’m actually talking about is how the 2nd Amendment is non-existent in actual militia cases; _Houston v. Moore_, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) (1820), _Martin v. Mott_, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) (1827), _Selective Draft Law Cases_, 245 U.S. 366 (1917) and _Perpich v. Dep’t of Defense_, 496 U.S. (1990). These are cases that the Court accepted and decided militia issues and conflicts. The only words of the Constitution the Court examines to direct its reasoning and understanding of the organized militia is Art I, §8, cl’s 15 & 16 and laws enacted under those clause’s authority (e.g., The Militia Act of 1792, and state militia regulations – in this case, Pennsylvania’s). In _Houston v Moore_, the Court states unequivocally (emphasis added): [INDENT]“ **The laws which I have referred to amount to a full execution of the powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution.** They provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasion. They also 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; leaving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training them according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”[/INDENT] The “full execution” of militia powers is only to be found in the body of the Constitution; the 2nd Amendment has noting to offer and is ignored. There are no latent, undefined powers to be found in the 2nd Amendment that would allow it to be interpreted the way you do. Your position is a complete perversion that has no support in the philosophical foundation, historical record or legal precedent of this Republic. While the 2nd Amendment has no legal action WRT militia, it was mentioned _ **one** _ time in those militia cases, in Justice Story’s dissent in _Houston v. Moore_. I guess he thought should at least look at it to see if it said anything about militia issues, but he discovered: [INDENT]“The [Second] Amendment to the Constitution, declaring that “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,” may not, perhaps, be thought to have any important bearing.” [/INDENT] If SCOTUS long ago decided the 2nd Amendment does not have _any_ militia implications, no connections or any latent influence on the organized militia and really has nothing to say on the subject, why can’t you accept that? More importantly, how do you justify claiming the 2nd Amendment has this influence, especially imparting militia conditions and qualifications on the people’s right to arms? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That’s pretty rich from somebody who can actually refer to Article 1, Section 8. :rolleyes: Do you really think “suppress” means “enable”? Insurrection assumes the government is legitimate and operating within the powers granted to it and the principles of its establishment. What Hamilton was discussing is the government when it is no longer operating within the confines of the Constitution and thus has lost the power to declare such action an “insurrection”. If this sentiment is widely held, no other militia would respond to the fed’s call to suppress their fellow countrymen. The purpose of rescinding our consent to be governed is to take back the supreme, preemptive powers we lent to the federal government, denying it the protections of the Constitution including what you mention. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Let’s just skip the “How’s that going for ya?” part and go right to the part where you distinguish between “the people” and “the nation”. To wit, Huh? Can I get that in English please? . ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/219 "2019-09-06T13:58:21Z")
> [@Abatis](#): > > The word’s appearance in the declaratory clause does not mean that it has any legal weight WRT militia, that it directs or controls or mandates any structure or action or condition to exist. The thread topic is what the writers meant, and how it influences current policy. Well, they fucking \*told \*us what they meant, didn’t they? > [@](#): > > The _Miller_ decision was focused only on the type of gun and whether it had any military / common defense usefulness Your claim was “it has never been inspected to inform or held to direct anything pertaining to militia.” Thanks for conceding your error. Thanks also for providing so many other refutations on your own. > [@](#): > > There are no latent, undefined powers to be found in the 2nd Amendment that would allow it to be interpreted the way you do. Your position is a complete perversion that has no support in the philosophical foundation, historical record or legal precedent of this Republic. “A well-regulated militia …” Oh, what’s the use? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Insurrection assumes the government is legitimate and operating within the powers granted to it and the principles of its establishment. And the people who get to decide that are whom? Local yahoos who respond to a democratically passed law by forming gangs, calling themselves a militia, and shooting cops who try to enforce it? That’s the only sort of _real-world_ scenario that ever gets brought up. > [@](#): > > Can I get that in English please? Since you insist on continuing your use of avoidance tactics: Please explain why you distinguish between “the nation” and “the people”. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345/220 "2019-09-06T14:11:39Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > And let me address to you similar questions I asked Shodan. If the purpose of the second amendment is to support a militia, do people who are unable to serve in a militia (like disabled people) have the right to keep and bear arms? Yes. The right of the people - people in general, where “people” means the same thing as “people peaceably to assemble” - to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. If someone has been adjudicated to have lost one or more of his or her rights, like being a felon or dangerously mentally ill, then their right can be removed - that’s not what “inalienable” means - but then the due process clause kicks in. You can send someone to prison for violating the law even though there is an inalienable right to liberty; you can remove the right to vote for felons even though there is an inalienable right to vote, etc. But “you use a wheelchair therefore you cannot own a gun” isn’t the same thing. > [@](#): > > Are weapons that aren’t useful for militia use covered by the second amendment? No, although it is a gray area (of course). If you mean things like nuclear weapons or poison gas, those kinds of inherent unsafe-to-possess weapons could be regulated in the sense of requiring them to safely stored even if that made it impractical to possess them. If you just mean automatic weapons, yes - IMO the ban on automatic weapons is a violation of the 2A. > [@](#): > > If the government decides that it has enough people to man the militia as needed, can it tell the rest of the people that they can’t own a gun? No, the right of the people in general to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. The 2A doesn’t say that the government can decide when “enough” people have exercised their right and therefore they can infringe on the rest. That would be like saying that two political parties is enough to elect federal representatives, therefore we can ban the Green Party. > [@](#): > > Can a person opt out of militia service and if they do so, do they forfeit their right to own a gun? Yes, they can opt out (unless Congress re-institutes a draft). No, they don’t forfeit their right to own a gun, because the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. People can opt out of their right to own a gun whenever they like, by not owning a gun. But just like people who don’t vote or run newspapers retain the right to free speech, choosing not to exercise a right doesn’t cause you to forfeit that right. > [@](#): > > Can the government store weapons at some central location and then issue them as needed when the militia is activated? No, because the right of the people to _bear_ arms cannot be infringed. > [@](#): > > Can the government require people to store their militia weapons at home when they’re not using them for militia service? No, because the right of the people to _bear_ arms cannot be infringed. Again, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. In general, the militia clause does not create exceptions; it is the justification. The argument about non-militia weapons is almost separate - the idea that someone cannot keep and bear a handgun or a shotgun or a semi-automatic rifle is pretty much a non-starter, because those weapons are pretty obviously something that a militia could want. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/founding-fathers-influencing-todays-politics/839345.md?page=12)