I know there’s a lot of documentation of that stuff out there, I’ve read some of it. I’ve lost the links (they reloaded my work machine with no warning, so I lost a goldmine of bookmarks). I’ll look & post it. For now I can give you a link to the Federalist papers if that helps any… http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fedpapers.html
Here is what I found so far (pretty good stuff, actually):
- Exploring Constitutional Conflicts Exploration of the Constitutional Convention, ratification debates, adoption of Bill of Rights, etc.
The Constitution of the United States
Complete Bill of Rights: The Drafts, Debates, Sources & Origins
American Legal History (READ THE DISCLAIMER)
Joe_Cool…
Thank you for being more eloquent than I.
Thanks, Joe … but, darn it, why did that Complete Bill of Rights link have to be a book review instead of a transcript? pout
Joe_Cool wrote:
First off, let me re-iterate that I am a gun owner and a big supporter of MY right to keep and bear arms. I have a very low opinion of politicians and do not consider the politicians of the Revolutionairy era to be any better than today’s breed. Good (i.e. successful) politicians are completely full of crap. They shamelessly pander to voters, they say one thing to get elected (i.e. gain power and control over this great nation) and then do another when they think no one is watching. They never reveal their true beliefs or intentions to anyone, not even in private (lest it “get out”). What does this have to do with gun ownership and the second amendment? Everything. Gun ownership was very popular in Revolutionairy times since we had just defeated the British. To be an open supporter of the British (i.e. a Loyalist) was enough to get you killed (so much for free speech). It was a desperate and violent era when the Bill of Rights and Federalist Papers were written. Could any reasonable person honestly expect to find much talk of banning gun ownership coming from any good politician (such as the ones Joe_Cool listed) in Revolutionairy times?
I do not put much stock in the words of politicians (living or dead) I focus only on their actions. One action outweighs all the words in the world and actions are outweighed by intentions (e.g. shoot a person for their wallet = murder, shoot a person to stop them from killing you = self defense, the actions are the same but the intentions are the difference between going free and getting the chair). Is it possible to figure out the true intentions of the state level politicians who wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights by looking at their actions? They enacted into law a set of individual rights to restrain the newly formed federal gov’t (sort of like putting chains on Frankenstein’s monster before you throw the switch). They never intended to wear these chains themselves. As proof that they did not consider these newly granted individual rights a restraint on their own actions toward thier own citizens consider this: states routinely denied their citizens jury trials and legal counsel in non-capital cases (a direct and flagrant violation of the 6th amendment). Only after the Supreme Court forced them to, did states start complying with the 6th amendment (I was taught this in high school so I assume it’s true.)
Now lets look at the exact wording of the 2nd amendment: “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.” I honestly do not see any ambiguity in that statement. The intentions of its authors seem so clear to me that I am cynical of other points of view. A clearer way of saying the same thing would be, “The federal gov’t can not take away any state’s militia because we need them to crush revolts from time to time.” That is, this amendment insures a state’s ability to crush a revolt, not a revolt’s ability to crush the state. Remember that in 1789 there were was no national gaurd, army, or state police. There was nothing but the citizen’s militia to put down a riot or revolt. The state legislators weren’t NECESSARILY happy about people having guns but they needed their supporters to be armed so they could call out the militia to save their own lives. If, for example, 1000 armed men were marching on the state house with the intent of burning it to the ground, the only defense the governor could call on was the militia (i.e. his supporters not the 1000 revolters).
In case my point is not clear, I do not believe that anyone (living or dead) was ever happy about the idea of me owning a gun. I am not happy about anyone else having guns. There are approximately 270 million people in this nation, approximately 270 million of these people are strangers to me (and to you as well I assume). Why should I be happy that any of them are armed and capable of blowing large holes in me? I don’t know which ones are criminals and which aren’t. I don’t know which ones would be on my side in the face of tyranny and which ones would support a fascist gov’t bent on “solving the problem” of me and people like me. I support MY right to keep and bear arms and if the price of that is letting everybody else be armed then so be it. I honestly don’t trust anyone (not the founding fathers, not the NRA, not Charlton Heston, not anyone) who claims to support my right to be armed and dangerous. They don’t know me, they don’t know how many heads I have in my freezer (the headcount might be zero, I’m not saying 
).
You know, Rex, this isn’t the first time I’ve seen you say this, and it sounds worse every time I hear it:
You won’t surrender your right to own firearms, but would prefer that no one else have the same right. Am I stating your views correctly? Do you see the inherent hypocrisy of your position, that you believe in a right that you would deny to all but yourself? What makes you so bloody special? The fact that you consider yourself “armed and dangerous” makes me wonder if you’re psychologically fit to own a gun at all.
It’s absolutely sick and sad that you have so little trust for your fellow man. The idea of everyone being armed doesn’t bother me a bit; might make society as a whole more polite, in fact. People, in general, are not criminals; that you prejudge people as dangerous and mistrust those you’ve never met strikes me as extremely paranoid.
Get out of your 10x10 shack in the woods and live a little.
Max Torque wrote:
It’s called honest selfishness. And I agree with SarumanRex here. I support my right to be as big and bad-ass as I possibly can. I’d support my right to be Grand Ruler of the Universe if such a right existed. I support the rights interests of others only inasmuch as they further my own rights.
Most people behave this way, whether or not they admit it to others (or to themselves).
You are correct, I am nothing if not redundant, I also repeat myself. 
I have heard the argument that the 2nd amendment was intended to insure a revolt’s ability to crush the state so many times that I have decided to refute it every time I hear it (I was assuming that this was the argument you were making by referencing the Federalist Papers). The argument is so ridiculous I can’t stand to listen to it anymore. However, I understand how someone who casually reads the 2nd amendment and the Federalist Papers could get this impression. The founding fathers talked a real good game but didn’t deliver on their promises in this case. The last line of the 2nd amendment, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”, seems to be so all encompassing that it lures the reader into forgetting the first line entirely. Why did the authors of the 2nd amendment include the first line at all? Why couldn’t they have just said, “All individuals have a right to keep and bear arms.”, and left it at that? Is it possible that the lawyers and politicians who chose the exact wording of the amendment wanted it to seem to give the citizens a lot more than it really did, to promise more than it delivered? If you refuse to believe that a bunch of lawyers would ever write a deceptive promise then you may already be a millionaire :).
Yes
Yes
Ideally, I would want to defend my life by being better armed than everyone else put together. Call me kooky. You have every right to feel the exact same way and to be suspicious of my motivations.
Do you consider yourself to be armed but safe? I also question your psychological fitness to own a gun. Guns are inherently dangerous to everyone that is near one including its owner.
If you trust your fellow man so much, what possible need do you have for guns (except as needed for hunting and target practice, and these weapons need not be stored in your home)? I live in San Diego, a big city, but not New York City by any stretch of the imagination. A former college friend of mine (a long islander) once discussed how to be “safe” in the streets and subways of NYC (this was back in the mid-80’s when crime was peaking). I suggested (half jokingly) that you should strap a gun to your hip like a gunslinger in the old west and strut around town like you’re looking for trouble. He said that this plan would be pure suicide. As soon as a gang banger saw that gun (which has great value on the street) he and his buddies would shoot you from behind with a Saturday night special, not giving you the slightest chance of defending yourself, just to take your gun (and your wallet of course, I mean you’re obviously a tourist, NYC has the toughest gun laws in the country). This simple statement, which he said with all seriousness, made me re-evaluate gun ownership and my fellow man. When someone has decided to be a criminal and rob you, why would they give you a fair chance to defend yourself? If they knew you were armed why wouldn’t they shoot first (assuming the oppurtunity presented itself, which, according to my friend, it did since so many people got shot in public in NYC every year)? This forced me to re-think my whole support of other people’s right to bear arms.
BTW, I intend to post my evaluation of the 2nd amendment every time someone brings it up and implies that it somehow guarantees a revolt’s ability to crush the state. The militia can never take up arms against the state. Once you take up arms against the state you are no longer a member of the militia. If the governor calls out the militia and you do not report for duty you are not a member of the militia. If the real militia sees you coming with 1000 other revolters then they would open fire with real bullets (remember they had no rubber bullets, tear gas, fire hoses, or other crowd dispersal techniques in 1789). If you were captured alive you would be hanged for insurrection like any other common criminal. No one would consider you to be a patriot or to be justified in trying to murder state officials. In order for a revolt to be successful then the militia would have to be destroyed and then the state could be toppled.
You are correct, though, that a citizen’s militia as the only defense against revolt helps keep government honest. Why is it then that governors no longer call out the citizen’s militia to stop riots? They call out the National Gaurd which is most definitely not a citizen’s militia. Why don’t they rely on the militias any more? Could it be that they don’t trust people with guns? (Keep in mind that some of our gov’t officials get a dozen death threats a week.) Could it be that they never really trusted citizens with guns but relied on them in the past because there was no alternative? If you still think that you are, today, a militia member as referenced in the 2nd amendment then what is your rank? Who is your commanding officer? Where is your rallying point for when the militia is called out? Why have you never been called to duty? Has there never been a riot in your state since you became an adult?
Thanks for the support, I was beginning to think that I was alone in my honest selfishness as you put it. I’ll have to remember that term for future use.
SarumanRex, I agreed with you up to this point…
I, for one, never said that the 2nd amendment is designed to allow citizens to overthrow the government should they ever desire, and I don’t think anyone else said anything like that, either.
Here’s the theory, once again, and shortened (I hate repeating myself)…
Sometime in the future (distant or not-too-distant)…
Government gets corrupt (much more so than it already is). Gov’t gets greedy (much more so than it already is). Gov’t decides to control Population through military force (since Population wouldn’t really enjoy Gov’t’s tyranny). Gov’t uses the only tool that would accomplish this job in a short amount of time, that being, the Army.
So what does Population do? Well, if Pop has guns, he shoots back, killing much of Gov’t and Army (Pop may be clumsy and stupid, but he’s REALLY big). Pop probably sets up new Gov’t afterward, but that’s a different story. So, if Gov’t knows that Pop has guns, they probably wouldn’t send Army after Pop. In fact, Gov’t would probably watch his ass to begin with.
See now? It’s the same idea as MAD… you set up a situation where if one party starts shit, BOTH parties get whupped… so therefore, NEITHER party starts shit.
Now, I’m not telling you to “trust your fellow man” (that’s an argument for another thread). In fact, I agree that I would much rather be armed with everyone else limited to a spear or something. But given the choice 'tween “Everyone Has Guns” and “No One Has Guns”, I think you’re with me in choosing the former choice.
You are quite correct SPOOFE in that an armed populace can intimidate a cowardly tyrant into backing down from a confrontation. I hope my previous posts have not given the impression that I don’t think an armed populus could stand up for itself in a pinch. My only point is that the founding fathers said SOOOO much about how good it is to have an armed populus, but when it came time to immortalize the right to bear arms in the constitution they only protected themselves. They had use for a well armed citizen’s militia and they wrote a carefully worded amendment to insure that the federal gov’t could not disarm the supporters of an ornery state gov’t. That first line of the 2nd amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”, opened the door to every piece of half-assed gun control legislation that has ever been upheld in this country. Is it true that there are over 20,000 gun control laws on the books (at the federal level plus in all 50 states)? More than the rest of the world combined? I’ve heard this figure from NRA spokespersons. Not one of these laws would have stood up in court if the entire 2nd amendment had been, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” My point is that the exact wording of the 2nd amendment makes it as much an enemy of gun ownership as a friend. If you think the 2nd amendment is going to protect you from the banning of all private gun ownership, then I say, “you have built your house upon the shifting sands.”
Nah, I don’t believe that… however, I DO believe that the 2nd amendment is in place to make the banishment of guns as difficult as possible, so that if, at some point, guns ARE banned, it’d be for reasons more tangible than a few overblown gun accidents and a milked-out tragedy or two.
There are two recognized legal interpretations of the 2nd
Amendment: The “Classic” (or individual rights) interpretation and the “Militia” (or State’s rights) interpretation.
The “Militia” int. is relatively new, and not supported in anything but the writings of HCI’s and CPHV’s paid legal staffs.
The “Classic” int. is supported by English Grammar, American History, Legal Precedent and Legal Scholarship, past and present.
I’m not arguing. I will not arfgue with uninformed people. I am informed. Most of you gun-banners are not. Leave this message board. Research the facts. Learn the facts. Return and argue the facts.
Or get your asses over to “Mundane and Pointless Stuff I Must Share”, where your uninfoirmed opinions belong.
If our moderators were doing their job here with as much enthusiasm and gusto as they do on “Evolution vs. Creationism” threads, this would’ve been punted long ago.
ExTank
There are two recognized legal interpretations of the 2nd
Amendment: The “Classic” (or individual rights) interpretation and the “Militia” (or State’s rights) interpretation.
The “Militia” int. is relatively new, and not supported in anything but the writings of HCI’s and CPHV’s paid legal staffs.
The “Classic” int. is supported by English Grammar, American History, Legal Precedent and Legal Scholarship, past and present.
I’m not arguing. I will not arfgue with uninformed people. I am informed. Most of you gun-banners are not. Leave this message board. Research the facts. Learn the facts. Return and argue the facts.
Or get your asses over to “Mundane and Pointless Stuff I Must Share”, where your uninfoirmed opinions belong.
If our moderators were doing their job here with as much enthusiasm and gusto as they do on “Evolution vs. Creationism” threads, this would’ve been punted long ago.
ExTank
ExTank wrote:
The earliest reference I could find to a states’-rights (“militia”) interpretation is this citation, from a law professor’s article I found at http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/vandhist.html:
I did not find any earlier references, even on HCI’s website. However, in that same article I’ve provided a link to above, I found two other proposed wordings for the Amendment that were rejected by Congress:
“A well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.” (wording proposed by a House committee)
“A well regulated Militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms (for the common defense) shall not be infringed.” (wording proposed in the Senate)
I’ve tried to loosen the Second Amendment knot somewhat by citing Article I Section 8 Clause 16 on multiple other threads. My point has always been, So what if it is an individual right (and I do think it is)? It’s no more an absolute than other Bill of Rights provision, and the Federal government retains its organizing / arming / disciplining rights over individual gun owners under Article I.
If you people want me to quit harping on Article I Section 8 Clause 16, the best way to get me to stop would be to address it. Just once. Just say one sentence about it. Anybody. Just to convince me that my posts are actually appearing on the http://www.and not just on my machine. I’ve written pages and pages about it on this and other message boards and I’ve never once gotten any direct replies. I’m starting to suffer from involuntary sollipsism.
ExTank, If you’re not debating my constitutional citation because you think I haven’t read the Constitution, then what can I tell you? I honestly have no idea who your last post was directed at.
That whacky “URL” (the second in my last post) is just supposed to be WWW.
ExTank has pissed me off so please excuse me if I flame his ass before this post is done.
If the “Classic, individual rights” interpretation of the 2nd amendment is the law of the land then why are there 20,000 gun control laws on the books? Huh? Why are there thousands of people in state and federal prisons on charges stemming from their ownership of guns? Why isn’t the Supreme Court putting in 12 hour days overturning all these laws and all these convictions? If my right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed then why can’t I legally own a sawed off shotgun? Mr. Z once answered that last question by quoting the Miller Case in which the Supreme Court stated that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms but a sawed off shotgun is not necessary to the militia (have I got that straight Mr. Z). Thus, the guy’s conviction on the charge of owning a sawed off shotgun was ** NOT OVERTURNED ** and the law that he was prosecuted under was also ** NOT OVERTURNED **. If the framers of the constitution wanted us to have an individual right to gun ownership why is the word State even used in the 2nd amendment? Why is it capitalized? If you’re so knowledgeable, where else in the Bill of Rights does the word State (sigular and with a capital S) appear? I’ll tell you where, it appears in the 6th amendment in the phrase, “…by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been commited…”. From this statement it is crystal clear what State refers to. It does not mean state of empowerment, state of freedom, or state of democracy, State (capital S) refers to State of Virginia, State of New York etc. Why is that word even used in the 2nd amendment? Please enlighten us oh wise one. In my humble and oh-so-ignorant opinion I think it’s there because the politicians that put it there were trying to say one thing and do another. They wanted to give the impression that they supported EVERYONE’s right to own guns (a very popular sentiment even now), when, in FACT, they wrote an amendment that didn’t guarantee that right at all. They had a USE for armed citizens and they wanted to continue to USE them, they no longer have any use for armed citizens so we have 20,000 gun control laws. In 1789, there was no state police or National Gaurd so they needed their supporters to be armed and ready to suppress a revolt. They feared that the newly formed federal gov’t could try and terrorize them by disarming their supporters (i.e. the citizens militia) and leaving them defensless against riot and revolt. (I realize that I’m repeating myself but it seems that ExTank did not hear me the first time.)
You also mentioned the debate over Evolution vs. Creationism. People believed in Creationism for thousands of years, does that make it true? Does the fact that people are just now realizing that the 2nd amendment does not protect their right to keep and bear arms and never has make them ignorant fools who know nothing of “English Grammar, American History, Legal Scholarship, and Legal Precedent”. You claim to know about Grammar, History, Scholarship, and Precedent, explain to us fools how 20,000 gun laws could be upheld if we really do have an individual right to keep and bear arms. I am not in favor of banning the private ownership of firearms, I am not in favor of any more gun control laws. What separates me from the rest of the pro-gun crowd, though, is that I realize that it is not the 2nd amendment that stands in the way of banning guns it is millions of gun owners who vote.
I apologize Boris for not addressing your previous posts (and one entire thread, and your signature line) on Article I Section 8 Clause 16. I have not commented on this because I believe your point is moot. The federal gov’t has no need to organize, arm, or discipline the citizens militias anymore, because for all practical purposes they no longer exist. Some will argue that every able-bodied American male is technically a part of the citizens militia. If you believe this to be true and that you are a member of the Militia as referenced in the 2nd amendment, then let me ask again: What is your rank? Who is your commanding officer? Where is your rallying point if the governor calls out the militia? Why have you never been called to serve or received any sort of gov’t sponsored organization, discipline, or arms as mentioned in Article I? I, for one, would appreciate it if the federal gov’t gave gun owners some training, discipline, and orginization. It might make this a better country, but it isn’t going to happen. Now that the states all have National Gaurd units (these are a paid military force NOT a citizens militia) the gov’t has no further use for any militias. Furthermore, I suspect that all gov’t officials would sleep better if they knew that the death threats they receive every week came from unarmed crackpots. I fear that all the legislation from now until the end of time is going to be pro gun control and the militias will never be called out (or otherwise endorsed) ever again.
Rex
Query, Boris:
The clause which you so love states that Congress has the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia. Do you believe that the power of Congress to arm the militia includes by inference the power to disarm the militia?