# The Founding Fathers and open carry **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 5, 2017, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584 "2017-09-05T19:22:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2017, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/81 "2017-09-15T19:42:34Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > I thought you did, when you said that the Second could be interpreted to mean that the government has full authority to enact gun control laws. Or to ask it a different way, what gun restrictions do you believe the government _couldn’t_ pass by your interpretation? Gun control is not the same as a gun ban. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2017, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/82 "2017-09-15T19:49:34Z")
That’s only hard to understand if your argument is driven by a result inconsistent with that state of being. What _can’t_ the government do, per the Second? It can’t disarm the National Guard (which is what the militias have been called for over a century, btw). Broader interpretations have accreted later contrary to the writers’ stated intentions, of course. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2017, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/83 "2017-09-15T23:10:38Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Could the federal government use that authority to disarm the populace under some pretext? (At the time no one even dreamed that anyone could argue with a straight face that banning firearms could be construed to be a “proper and necessary” power of the federal government). The Second’s purpose was to forestall any weaselly lawyering the Fed might try to disband or nullify the armed populace, which was to be a check against any imperial ambitions on the Feds part. So the prefatory clause is pointing out “we NEED civilian arms, so don’t try to say we can do without.” I have recolored your parenthetical, which appears to contradict your sentences before _and_ after. In the words of Sveriges-Riksbank-Prize-winning economist Paul R. Krugman, “Wow.” ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2017, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/84 "2017-09-15T23:25:12Z")
> [@igor\_frankensteen](#): > > I really don’t care what the various individual “founding fathers” thought about open carry, or arms in general. > > I am firmly opposed to the all too common habit many people have, of DEIFYING the “FF’s,” and behaving as though we must live according to the collective fantasies of those eighteenth century men, or magically lose the mythical wonder of the United States. > > Frankly, following that mentally ill delusion is what has, more than anything else, already endangered individual rights and liberty in the country. > > My opinion is that a lot of the Constitution was either poorly written, or was made purposely vague, in order to allow men who sharply disagreed with each other over all sorts of details, to nevertheless sign on to create a nation with it. It’s up to us who came after, to correct their purposeful and accidental errors. They did do one thing very right, which was to build in a specific way that we CAN make corrections, including making it sufficiently difficult to do so, that we wont be likely to make hasty changes without debate. > > The Second Amendment in particular needs a rewrite. Not just because of the unnecessary confusion engendered by the “militia” participle, but because as it is so oversimply written, that no provision is made for keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of lunatics and traitors and criminals. I have to agree. Whatever gun laws are to look like today should be determined based on their utility given today’s technology and today’s circumstances. And the Second Amendment reads like nothing so much as a double pander: “We’ll talk about a well-regulated militia to appease the law-and-order types, and say something vague about the right to bear arms to appeal to people who want a gun for themselves. And it won’t really matter, because the \*state \*laws will be the actually enforceable ones. It just helps get the Constitution ratified if we have meaningless stuff like this in an attached Bill of Rights.” ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2017, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/85 "2017-09-16T01:30:32Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Gun control is not the same as a gun ban. Certainly gun control advocates endorse banning entire categories of guns, by design, capacity and firepower. The mere fact that you might in the end be _allowed_ to own some pathetic toy that might technically be called a gun would not mean that for all practical purposes guns weren’t banned. Certainly banning the possession of weapons bestowing any parity with professional armed forces would undo the entire original intent of the Second. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2017, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/86 "2017-09-16T01:44:47Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Certainly gun control advocates endorse banning entire categories of guns, by design, capacity and firepower. By evidence of the beaten to death quote _“I do not want to take away your guns. But I do want to ban…”_ (usually uttered by Democrats, BTW) Banning anything **is** taking it away. perhaps I don’t own it now, but if they ban it they’ve taken it away from me forever by taking away my option to have it. How about this one: _“you don’t need [such and such] kind of gun, blah blah blah.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2017, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/87 "2017-09-16T03:29:41Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > Banning anything **is** taking it away. perhaps I don’t own it now, but if they ban it they’ve taken it away from me forever by taking away my option to have it. The category of things **pkbites** is not allowed to own is huge and encompasses way more than just guns. Must be horrible for you not being able to buy anything you want. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2017, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/88 "2017-09-16T03:34:29Z")
Aside from the legality of it vs the Constitution, if you did manage to get your Supreme Court majority and pass serious gun restrictions, _just what do you think would happen?_. Let’s say your side gained both houses with veto-proof majorities and the presidency, and you tried to use that legislative power to pass for example an Australian-style gun grab, do you think would be likely to happen? Especially when a majority of Americans support the 2nd Amendment and the Republicans control most states? The best case scenario is that there would maybe be a constitutional convention to re-establish the right to bear arms. Worst case is that you cause further serrious divides in the country and risk greatly inflaming the divisions in America’s ongoing culture war. If yiou care at all about civil. sivil society, you might consider the side effects of your policy proposals. I would also add that the general population begins to look a lot more like a 21st century militia in the age of terrorism. This does not seem like a particularly good time to disarm the good guys, and the ability of the citizenry. To defend their country and themselves is what the 2nd is all about. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2017, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/89 "2017-09-16T06:37:18Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Aside from the legality of it vs the Constitution, if you did manage to get your Supreme Court majority and pass serious gun restrictions, _just what do you think would happen?_. Let’s say your side gained both houses with veto-proof majorities and the presidency, and you tried to use that legislative power to pass for example an Australian-style gun grab, do you think would be likely to happen? Especially when a majority of Americans support the 2nd Amendment and the Republicans control most states? > > \ > > I would also add that the general population begins to look a lot more like a 21st century militia in the age of terrorism. This does not seem like a particularly good time to disarm the good guys, and the ability of the citizenry. To defend their country and themselves is what the 2nd is all about. To answer the first part I expect fewer people will die. [The statistics support this. Gun control saves lives. Lack of gun control kills people.](https://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21700596-evidence-growing-gun-violence-america-product-weak-gun-laws-guns) What’s more, gun control is popular in the US. A majority want it (see link above for a cite). So I am not convinced of a push for people to get a constitutional convention going to re-enable gun ownership. If you think that is likely you are living in an echo chamber. Australia’s gun grab worked (again, see cite linked above). Their country is improved. Never have I seen a case where a society is improved by increasing gun ownership. Over and over and over the statistics do not support gun advocates that guns reduce crime and save lives. On balance quite the opposite. They are a scourge with nearly zero benefits. As to the second part I quoted above…huh? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2017, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/90 "2017-09-16T10:14:03Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I have recolored your parenthetical, which appears to contradict your sentences before _and_ after. In the words of Sveriges-Riksbank-Prize-winning economist Paul R. Krugman, “Wow.” There’s absolutely no such thing as the Sveriges-Riksbank-Prize. :eek: Are you perhaps referring to the Sveriges riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne? Please. Let’s strive for accuracy. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2017, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/91 "2017-09-16T17:04:13Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Must be horrible for you not being able to buy anything you want. :rolleyes: If I have a right to own it and it’s banned then it’s tyranny. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2017, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/92 "2017-09-16T19:38:36Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > What’s more, gun control is popular in the US. A majority want it (see link above for a cite). Have you forgotten that a (electoral) majority put Donald Trump in the White House? Any time a liberal/progressive insists that the country backs their proposals I :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2017, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/93 "2017-09-16T20:18:14Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Gun control is not the same as a gun ban. You post this, but then you make arguments that are pretty clearly in favor of _banning_ guns, not just “controlling” them: > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Australia’s gun grab worked (again, see cite linked above). Their country is improved. Never have I seen a case where a society is improved by increasing gun ownership. > > Over and over and over the statistics do not support gun advocates that guns reduce crime and save lives. On balance quite the opposite. They are a scourge with nearly zero benefits. You also claim that > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > What’s more, gun control is popular in the US. A majority want it (see link above for a cite). I looked in [your link](https://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21700596-evidence-growing-gun-violence-america-product-weak-gun-laws-guns), and didn’t actually see any data on that. All I saw was the sentence “Public-opinion surveys show widespread support for tighter controls on gun-ownership in America”. There are other links we can look at, like [this Pew Research report from December 2014](http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/#total) titled “Growing Public Support for Gun Rights” (links that have actual data in them). As you say, not all “gun control” equates with “gun bans”; there is undoubtedly very broad support for proposals like universal background checks, even by a lot of conservatives / Republicans / gun owners / supporters of an individual right to keep and bear arms. I’m sure you could also find substantial public support for ideas that I think are basically kind of stupid (like bans on “assault weapons”) or even pernicious (like “no fly, no buy”; that is, bans on gun ownership based on someone being on a completely unaccountable secret government list). But I don’t think the data shows most Americans are ready for “gun control” proposals that are actually attempts at broad-based bans on gun ownership, or that amount to attempts to “disarm” law-abiding people. I think if Democrats / liberals / progressives start pushing “gun control” policies that are in fact more like “gun bans” than they are like “background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people”, they will hurt themselves politically. If I were a Trump-lovin’ Republican, I might actually be happy about this. But I’m not; I’m a liberal (who happens to favor protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms). Wearing my “pro-gun” hat, I’m not happy about “gun control” proposals that are actually “disarm the general population” proposals. And wearing my “liberal who really, _really_ wants to beat Trump (and the whole damned Republican Party)” hat, I’m also not happy about “gun control” proposals that are actually “disarm the general population” proposals, for a whole other set of reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2017, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/94 "2017-09-16T23:48:31Z")
And without a ban on guns, exactly what do gun control proposals hope to accomplish? Is a nation with 100 million guns any less dangerous than one with 101 million guns? Just what effect on crime do you really think something like a ban on high capacity magazines or slightly stronger registration requirements would have? And is it worth burning up political capital over? Is it worth damaging the social fabric of America even more than it already is? And how many more elections do Democrats need to lose before they get the message? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2017, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/95 "2017-09-17T01:35:51Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > And how many more elections do Democrats need to lose before they get the message? Individuals who are OK with guns and identify as Democrats aside, I’m not certain that gun ownership isn’t somehow fundamentally inimical to the Democrats core ideology. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2017, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/96 "2017-09-17T03:07:47Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > And without a ban on guns, exactly what do gun control proposals hope to accomplish? Is a nation with 100 million guns any less dangerous than one with 101 million guns? Just what effect on crime do you really think something like a ban on high capacity magazines or slightly stronger registration requirements would have? And is it worth burning up political capital over? Is it worth damaging the social fabric of America even more than it already is? Whenever someone brings up the gun laws of another country (especially Australia) they are forgetting that those are different cultures. They do not have the same deep belief systems that we hold in the USA. The gun bans/mandatory surrender of New York, California, and Connecticut are not being obeyed by many otherwise law abiding citizens. Can you imagine telling folks in Texas, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, etc. that they had to turn in their semi-auto rifles? You’d hear the second biggest fuck you in human history. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2017, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/97 "2017-09-17T03:25:51Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Individuals who are OK with guns and identify as Democrats aside, I’m not certain that gun ownership isn’t somehow fundamentally inimical to the Democrats core ideology. Not at all. Many Democrats are police, security, skeet shooters, hunters, etc. Now, if you are a true “gun nut” with dozens of guns, most looking kinda paramilitary? Then you very likely vote GOP and are a single issue voter. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2017, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/98 "2017-09-17T03:27:58Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > And how many more elections do Democrats need to lose before they get the message? The Gun nuts are single issue voters. I know several, all of whom are actually fairly liberal on things like abortion rights, etc, but vote GOP only and always, to protect their guns. It doesnt matter what the Democratic platform says. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2017, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/99 "2017-09-17T03:51:02Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Individuals who are OK with guns and identify as Democrats aside, I’m not certain that gun ownership isn’t somehow fundamentally inimical to the Democrats core ideology. What do you think the Democrats’ core ideology is? I think it’s simpler than that. Some people are pro-gun, some people are anti-gun. This does not map to the rest of one’s political ideology. But if the post-Gingrich GOP want to be pro-gun; then, given the way many “conservatives” and even some “libertarians” yell and curse at anyone who disagrees with them on pretty much any big issue, some of the more ideological anti-gun people are naturally going to look to the Democrats to stand up for them. ---
**Author:** ![Abatis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d78d45/32.png) [@Abatis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abatis)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2017, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/100 "2017-09-17T04:44:42Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It is not well refuted at all. Yeah, it’s refuted . . . Understand it was a dead theory when it was inserted in the federal courts in 1942. By then the protection that you claim the 2nd was intended to extend, (repelling federal encroachment of state militia powers), was crushed by the Dick Act with nary a peep from the states claiming the 2nd’s protection. Your theory is claiming the 2ndA protected something that had been extinguished decades before. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The most you can say is Scalia re-wrote the second amendment to say: > > [del]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,[/del] [T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. > > We’re stuck with that for now but it does not make the debate refuted even a little bit. Scalia rewrote nothing. All _Heller_ did was to invalidate the two lower federal court opinions where the “militia right” and “state’s right” were inserted in the federal courts – _Cases v. U.S_, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) and _U.S. v. Tot_, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942) respectively. No Supreme Court precedent was disturbed . . . actually it was quoted and a foundational principle was brought back into respect. The Court reaffirmed that the right to arms is not granted or given or created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment so the right in no manner depends on the Constitution for its existence. That simple reaffirmation invalidates your fixation of the declaratory clause because arguing that the right is conditioned upon or qualified by words that the right in no manner depends upon is constitutionally illegitimate. Arguing that the right can only be exercised within the official militia is also illegitmate. Since the state militia is a structure entirely dependent on the Constitution for _ **ITS** _ existence, the right secured by the 2nd Amendment can not be linked to it (again, the right is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584.md?page=6)