Founding Fathers influencing today's politics

Great Debates
101

I don’t see it.

Take another example: there’s an Amendment that says the right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. I like to think I get what that means; I like to think we’re on the same page about it, too.

Imagine that they (a) wrote it that way, but (b) stuck something in front of it. Like, imagine it says: “Women who are more than fifty years old, typically being wiser and more experienced than women who are less than thirty, the right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”

That’d be weird, but I wouldn’t actually give a crap about the part in front. I mean, I can still see the part where it declares stuff about the rights of citizens of the United States who are eighteen years of age or older; it’s still right there, y’know? It doesn’t limit itself to women; it doesn’t draw a line at fifty, or thirty. I just see where it says things about citizens of the United States who are eighteen years or older, and I still see it flatly putting that out there even for men in their twenties even though it first yammers on for some reason about women who are over fifty.

102

I think we’re in agreement. I said in an earlier post “My understanding of our current gun laws is that they are based on the theory that the right to own firearms is a right held by individuals, not a right held by members of a group, even if it’s a group of which everyone is automatically a member.”

I feel that the first half in the second amendment - A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State - is essentially meaningless. The meaningful part of the amendment is the second half - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed - which stand fully on its own without needing or being modified by the first half.

But some people in this thread are arguing that the first part does have some legal weight and does affect the meaning of the second half.

103

If the militia part of the clause is essentially meaningless… then it would not have been included in the Constitution. Since it is included in the Constitution, the (heavy) burden of proof is on others to provide reasons to discard it.

Had it NOT been included, it would be much more difficult to believe that ANY regulations against arms were allowed. But they have been. You are not allowed to have a warhead in your backyard. You are not allowed to collect enough arms to overthrow the government, then proceed to do so. Et cetera.

Suppose “well regulated” was interpreted to mean that citizens were allowed to keep one rifle and one pistol, in good working order. If yours broke down, you could replace them with new ones. You were even expected to do so. Perhaps they were issued you, along with free training in how to use them and shooting practice. But no more than one rifle and one pistol per citizens. More advanced weapons are kept in the armory.

Is this infringement on the right to keep and bear arms? Without it, yes. With it, likely not. The citizens have a right to the arms, because of the well regulated militia, but not in excess of what is required, or weaponry that would be poorly regulated in the hands of every person.

104

I’m not looking to discard it in general; I’ll look right at it when it happens to be relevant, even though I’ll look elsewhere to answer other questions.

Like, if someone asks me whether the Constitution mentions that the people have a right to keep and bear arms, I’ll look to see whether there’s a part that helpfully says The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed; and, upon spotting that, I’ll relay what I see there — but, oh, rest assured: if someone instead asks me if the Constitution mentions that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state? I’d then look right at the part that helpfully says stuff about a Well-Regulated Militia and the Security Of A Free State: it’s still there; I haven’t discarded it; it’s irrelevant so long as I’m being asked unrelated questions, but it’ll get my full attention the very moment I’m asked about it.

105

The Constitution was written by a bunch of regular human beings not handed down from God. There’s no reason to assume it’s a perfect document. Hell, they spelled Pennsylvania wrong and they were in that state at the time.

That said, I’ve already agreed that you can make an argument that the correct interpretation of the second amendment is that the right to own guns is associated with membership in a militia. But you can equally well interpret it as a right held by all individuals regardless of militia membership. And when two equal interpretations are available, I favor the one that gives broader rights.

106

Let’s look at what is being proposed:

a) the framers of the 2nd Amendment were “giving back” to the citizens a conditioned, qualified and restrained fragment of a right the people never parted with . . .

AND

b) the states ratified that Amendment knowing it could be interpreted to allow the federal government to decide WHO should be the approved arms bearers within and for their state and establish later, using undefined power, under what conditions the federal government would recognize the state’s citizens as having a right to arms – and enforce that with federal law that would work to disarm a state’s citizens the fed’s deemed unworthy . . .

That’s the BS you need to believe to “interpret” the 2ndA as qualifying / conditioning the right to arms of the people upon militia attachment – that the feds get to decide the criteria of.

Absolutely absurd.

107

Here’s the real deal . . .

The first half (declaratory clause) is an inactive, dependent statement of principle, a maxim of our republic. The wording of the amendment represents and conforms with the varying proposals from the states (that Madison had to edit / rework) which mirrored the provisions in their own constitutions.

In their constitution’s bills of rights, the states lumped themes with similar objects (intents) together. Most of the states had a provision that had the over-all intent of binding / restraining government powers of force.

These provisions typically had three prongs:

a) The citizens retained the right to arms
b) standing armies in time of peace were dangerous to liberty and ought not be maintained
c) the military should always be subordinate to the civil authority.

Here are some examples of state provisions that were in force during the enactment of the federal Constitution and the Bill of Rights:
[INDENT]1776 North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and as standing armies, in 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. . . .

**1777 Vermont:** That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State—**and as standing armies in 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.

***1780 Massachusetts:*** 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.

***1790 Pennsylvania:*** 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.[/INDENT]

The separate prongs of these directives were never considered interdependent (that *all *must exist for any to be actionable, i.e., that if a standing army does exist, the right to arms of the people doesn’t).

Actually, it is clear that the standing army declarative clauses were merely legally inert declarations of principle. It isn’t binding a state’s powers to create a standing army, nor can it be interpreted to prevent the federal government from exercising its supreme and preemptive Art I, § 8, cl’s 11, 12, 13 & 14 powers.

Considering that the wording of the 2nd Amendment was drawn from similar provisions and the framers were accustomed to such constructions, one can’t really say that the 2nd Amendment is unique or clumsy, ambiguous or confusing, just because it employs grammatical structures we are now unfamiliar with (an ablative or normative absolute phrase / clause).

The declaration in the federal 2nd Amendment, “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” is inextricably meshed (philosophically) with, “as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up.” To the framers each represented the same sentiment . . .

The declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment only re-affirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim of Republics, going back to Aristotle; that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic (national government) tyranny (thus ensuring the free state).

So, without a doubt the inactive, dependent declaratory clause can at best only be said to be a statement of why the AMENDMENT exists, and as such it does not create, qualify, condition, modify or constrain the pre-existing right. It only states one reason – the political one – (surprised face) for why the fully retained right of the people to keep and bear arms, is being forever shielded from federal government interference.

.

108

Nope. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is that the defence of the state should be by a militia not a federal standing army and citizens weapons are just a means to that end. The militia has been comprehensively overtaken by events leaving the right to bear arms as a sort of logical zombie clause that can’t convincingly prove it’s alive but can’t quite be killed either .

109

The Founding Fathers were men of their time. They were not soothsayers. Despite their near infallible wisdom - as is so generously foisted on them for often all too convenient motives - they could not, and did not, have the ability to predict the outcome of all of their ideals. That’s not necessarily a failing on their part; they were merely humans, after all. But, if they are even half as wise as they are credited of being, observing the state of gun culture in American society today, I believe they would offer a very different version of the second amendment and its interpretation. And if we were half as wise as we’d like to think we are, we’d fucking realize that “unalienable rights” with respect to guns are bullshit now. Changing them does not entail the entire destruction of the constitution or the bill of rights. And while those who oppose abolishing RCBA will rend and cry to the heavens, there is no reason for any of us to think any assistance is coming from that direction. It’s time to exercise some wisdom of our own, in our own time, and get rid of that which no longer serves us. It seems to me, the wisdom of the FF has allowed for that as well.

110

Over time, the Constitution HAS taken more of a “handed down by God” aspect. May not be right, but I have seen it with my own eyes.

As far as the militia stuff goes, it seems to me that there was either an affinity for it, or the Founders thought it would work better than it did. A militia is completely ineffective as a fighting force. It’s why we have the largest effective standing army in the world. The militia never, ever worked.

Rights conflict with each other. People were required to turn in their guns in the old Western towns. It made sense for people to have guns out in the frontier, out of town, when you might have to be your own law, or protect yourself from animal predators. Guns in town were more likely to be used to rob the town or shoot someone else in a drunken argument. They are two different life situations. Controlling the gun population in the town made the town better, made more people want to move to the town. The gun control of the town did not extend outside its borders, rules were different outside the town.

It’s clear that 2A meant that some arms were allowed. Did the founders mean that the right to bear arms was absolute, it should trump every other right? You may have the right to free speech. But I can own private property, individually or with a group, and prevent you from setting foot on that property and exercising your free speech right. If the right to bear arms is more absolute, if the rulings are that jurisdictions cannot assemble and make any law controlling the right to bear arms even to a small extent, that is a different matter. Obviously in the old West no one went to the Supremes and sued based on their right to bearing arms should trump all jurisdictions. Today they are doing that. You’d be allowed to have your guns in town, everyone would, the robbery rate and drunking shooting rate would skyrocket.

111

It’s always fun to find somebody who preaches a belief in an absolute right of property and an absolute right of carrying guns and asking them if a property owner can forbid people carrying guns on his property.

112

That’s not true, slightly less than half were 'cool with slavery", but a compromise had to be made.

If you read the history of the 2nd, the “militia” clause was added afterwards, the more to make sure the USA didnt have a standing Army and each state was allowed a militia. The Founding fathers assumed this militia would be made of men who owned their own muskets.

113

Jefferson would be counting to 1000 if he was alive to see the feds raiding our communities and mass rounding up our people.

114

Almost certainly madison would seeing as he drafted the damn thing with the intent the people could protect themselves from the feds.

115

If you’re going to use the 18th century definition of “Well regulated”, you have to use the 18th century definition of “arms” (not to mention “bear”, which I’d think would toss concealed-carry out the window). Conversely, if you’re going to use the 21st century meaning of “arms”, then don’t take umbrage with those wishing to use the 21st century meaning of “well regulated”.

I’d like to see what they’d say about porn.

116

I don’t know whether they would be furious or broken-hearted. Or both. We have allowed the federal government to morph into exactly what they were trying to prevent from happening.

117

Again - “well regulated” applies to the militia, not the arms.

You could, I suppose, apply a different definition to “militia”. But the Second Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, no matter what you say about the militia. So whatever you wind up with as a “well regulated militia”, the people have to have a right to keep and bear arms so you can wind up with it.

Regards,
Shodan

118

This keeps being needlessly trotted out. Why don’t y’all wait until someone actually says “well-regulated guns” before you trot it out again, o.k.?

119

Amazing how these discussions about the founders invariably revolve around guns. I’m of the opinion that no person has ever changed his mind about gun control, just as no person has ever changed his mind about abortion. Arguments about guns always generate more heat than light and we find ourselves in alternate realities that cannot be bridged. With that in mind, I’m sure that some will disagree with everything I write but that’s to be expected.

My two cents:
I don’t care if the founders would be for or against gun control if they were reanimated today. They lived in different times. Madison never gave a thought to whether his children would be murdered in school, Jefferson did not worry about attending a theater and looking for the exits in case a mad gunman started blazing fire. If they had, the 2nd would look much different, if it existed at all.

The founders were not ones to waste words. In my opinion, a correct interpretation of the 2nd is that the militia (National Guard) has the right to bear arms. I don’t buy the notion that “well regulated” means “in good working order”, that’s one of those things that gets repeated because people think it’s true and people think it’s true because it gets repeated. I also don’t buy that “the militia” meant all white males, even in the old days the militia was something you joined and something that was regulated.

The notion that we need guns to rein in or overthrow a corrupt government is silly. Poland and East Germany got rid of their communist masters without firing a shot. Armed insurgents with the help of foreign powers have not ousted the despotic Syrian regime. Of all the things that make governments fall, weaponry isn’t one of them.

There are weapons that were made for the purpose of killing lots of people quickly. There is no legitimate reason for civilians to have such weapons.

People who have unstable mental conditions, certain criminal histories, or who have proven to be a danger to others have no right to own guns. Opposition to background checks or waiting periods is simply foolishness.

Other countries have video games and mental health problems. No other nation has so many mass murders. I believe guns are the reason.

People who think that we can’t lift a finger on guns until every other means of murder have been eliminated are morons. Yes you can come at me with a knife, but I’ve got a lot more of a chance than if you come at me with a gun. And if you compare accidental shootings with drownings in swimming pools, you’re batshit crazy.

120

I think it’s fair to say that people in America are “well armed”. In your opinion, do we have a “well regulated militia”? If so, in what way is it “well regulated”, effective, and to what purpose?