2A "Historical" Readings...What were the Founding Father's really thinking?

[HBecwithFn7 296]

I'd be interested in knowing if anyone here knows of any auxiliary writings of our "founding fathers" as to their thinking on 2A. Of course, we all know the end result (i.e. the 2A itself - "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). But so many have interpreted these words to facilitate their own agenda, claiming, "It's what the Founding Fathers wanted." I was just wondering if anyone knew of he best auxiliary/additional writings published by our founding fathers as to their mindset, hopefully to explain/clarify what they actually meant in that compact statement.

 

Any "helpful" suggestions, appreciated.

[Murphy4570 15]

The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers have reams of knowledge pertaining to the debates that raged around the constitutional convention of 1787. That'd be a good place to start. The personal memoirs of the attendees of that convention would be a good place to look as well.

 

Any truly in-depth research would require access to various archives, as much information still hasn't been made available on line, though quite a bit has been. Check your local library. Many have subscriptions to national archival search engines, such as JStor.

 

Additonally, you can contact the history department of your local university, and ask the resident expert on the Revolutionary period on what sources to search out. They would know best, and would quickly point out valuable source material, both primary and secondary.

 

If you contact Rowan University (my alma mater), ask for Dr. Carrigan in the History Department. He is their resident Revolutionary era expert.

[HBecwithFn7 296]

The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers have reams of knowledge pertaining to the debates that raged around the constitutional convention of 1787. That'd be a good place to start. The personal memoirs of the attendees of that convention would be a good place to look as well.

 

Any truly in-depth research would require access to various archives, as much information still hasn't been made available on line, though quite a bit has been. Check your local library. Many have subscriptions to national archival search engines, such as JStor.

 

Additonally, you can contact the history department of your local university, and ask the resident expert on the Revolutionary period on what sources to search out. They would know best, and would quickly point out valuable source material, both primary and secondary.

 

If you contact Rowan University (my alma mater), ask for Dr. Carrigan in the History Department. He is their resident Revolutionary era expert.

 

Many thanks. I've been able to Google a few tidbits here and there (just "soundbite" quotes) but they seem to reflect the agenda of the content provider (either way). Nothing like the source docs themselves to get to the bottom of it.

[JimB1 554]

Well, I think this quote by George Mason regarding what a militia is pretty much kills the anti argument and if anyone would know what they meant by a militia he would be the guy...

 

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil authority"

 

Basically Mason was opposed to a large standing army for fear that it would be used against the states and instead wanted a small core army with the militia able to be called up at need. Other delegates were opposed to giving the federal government the power to regulate the militia feeling it would give them too much power. The 2a we have now is a compromise stating that militias should be "well regulated" but to allay the fears of some states they left it open as to who was to regulate the militia. Since the authority was not given to the federal government, it falls to some other body. Which to me means it's either a state or individual right. Many states have a 2a equivalent in their state constitutions so that means they have at some point determined that the militia should be regulated by the people since that's the only group left that the constitution assigns rights or obligations to. In states that do not have a 2a equivalent like NJ but don't specifically state that they will regulate their militia, I think that still means it's regulated by the people since the people have not given the state the authority do so.

 

This is the original wording by Madison:

 

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

 

The Federalist and anti-federalist papers should be required reading for everyone. Things would be so much clearer for a lot of people...

 

The issue now comes from the fact that we have a very large standing army which was not the original thought when Madison and Mason created the second amendment. Obviously from Madison's writings he recognized a large standing army as a possible threat and many now say that was a factor Mason and Madison foresaw when writing the 2a.

 

... And on top of this there is article 1 section 8 which states that congress has authority over militias:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

To 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, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

 

In recent years the federal government has acted such that the militia is actually the national guard in respect to article 1 section 8.

 

Just a few thoughts on it... Sorry it's a long post...

-Jim

[Fawkesguy 57]

Not a reference, but there are a few great quotes in this article: http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira58.html

[Newtonian 453]

I'm (obviously) not a lawyer. I'm a writer and editor.

 

There is considerable debate over the "militia" clause. But if you're reading plain English, it doesn't matter. They could just as well have written, "Because the Kidney Pies at Jonathan's Taverne are so revered on Wednesdays, and the Whores of Broadway so inexpensive on Saide Dayes..." 

 

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP (in their homes) AND BEAR (outside of their homes) ARMS (wake up, Alito and Scalia) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

 

Read it. Read it. 

 

Fukc am I the only crazy person in the world?????

 

[Sota 1,191]

Nope.I'm in the padded room next door.

[maintenanceguy 510]

The federalist papers mention the "well regulated militia" twice.  Once in passing but in the other reference, it was obvious - at least to me - that a "well regulated" militia was one that was "made regular" through training.

[njpilot 671]

"A Government that does not trust it’s law abiding citizens to keep and bear 
arms, is itself, unworthy of trust." --James Madison, chief wordsmith of the 
Constitution

 

"Any government that would attempt to disarm its people is despotic; and any 

people that would submit to it deserve to be slaves."-- Stephen F. Austin, 
1835

 

"The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the 

right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It 
protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them 
effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us." --Judge Andrew 
Napolitano

[oneshot 45]

I'm (obviously) not a lawyer. I'm a writer and editor.

 

There is considerable debate over the "militia" clause. But if you're reading plain English, it doesn't matter. They could just as well have written, "Because the Kidney Pies at Jonathan's Taverne are so revered on Wednesdays, and the Whores of Broadway so inexpensive on Saide Dayes..." 

 

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP (in their homes) AND BEAR (outside of their homes) ARMS (wake up, Alito and Scalia) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

 

Read it. Read it. 

 

Fukc am I the only crazy person in the world?????

Nope i'm just as crazy apparently . I went to catholic school so English comprehension was beat into me with a pointer made of maple .

[CMJeepster 2,777]

Anyone ever read "Supreme Court Gun Cases"  http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Court-Cases-David-Kopel/dp/1889632058 or similar books?

[wooly bugger 1]

One word of warning: there are a lot of fake quotes out there on the internet. Things like George Washington calling guns our "liberty teeth" and mentioning that 99.9997% of guns remain silent. Fact check everything before believing it.

[JimB1 554]

One word of warning: there are a lot of fake quotes out there on the internet. Things like George Washington calling guns our "liberty teeth" and mentioning that 99.9997% of guns remain silent. Fact check everything before believing it.

+1 lots of partial quotes floating around too. Context is everything when looking for the truth.

-Jim

[HBecwithFn7 296]

+1 lots of partial quotes floating around too. Context is everything when looking for the truth.

-Jim

 

Precisely.

[Bytor325 0]

Read Federalist Papers #46 and you'll never ask this question again. Written by Madison before the ratification of the Constitution

 

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2012/12/madison-federal.html

[Silence Dogood 468]

There's nothing fake about Tench Coxe - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tench_Coxe

 

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --- Tench Coxe The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

 

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." --- Tench Coxe (1755–1824), writing as "A Pennsylvanian," in "Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution," in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, p. 2 col. 1

 

So what part of that do PEOPLE.NOT.GET???

[Newtonian 453]

The issue now comes from the fact that we have a very large standing army which was not the original thought when Madison and Mason created the second amendment. Obviously from Madison's writings he recognized a large standing army as a possible threat and many now say that was a factor Mason and Madison foresaw when writing the 2a.

 

A very well-reasoned and informative post. I used to consider original intent, supporting documents, as well. But you can go anywhere with them, really. It becomes almost a religious argument. I used to argue that with friends we used to call the framers (constitutionalists, as well as owning an honest-to-God framing shop -- long dead now. Both hadn't been to a doctor since middle age and both lived into their 90s). 

 

You should follow a writer named Mark Steyn. He's currently consumed by a lawsuit so his writing is not as interesting as it could be. But he's been making the point that we not only have a very, very large standing army but militarized police. Even the Dept. of Education has a SWAT team.

[HBecwithFn7 296]

Imo...... You can read into and read from the framers writing to try to ascertain their thoughts.. But essentially all you can rely upon is the ratified language.

 

 

What the framers thought in reality doesn't matter... It was was ratified by the states that does....

 

Playing devils advocate her of course.... I lean more towards true intent of what they wanted in lieu of the literal language.

 

My original intent was on "ascertaining their (framer's) thoughts," not the "ratified language," which has been interpreted and re-interpreted, and twisted from the original meaning. I wanted to know what they were originally thinking. I realize that the "ratified language" is what is in play today. I was just trying to unravel it back to the framer's original meaning.

[CMJeepster 2,777]

I might have to pick up a copy of this book:  http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/05/25/4136822/president-of-brennan-center-for.html

[jackandjill 683]

Often, there is little doubt in what Founding Fathers were thinking. You can sense this even in many anti-2A arguments. Antis often argue that founding fathers did not know/anticipate power and type of today's weapons, admitting to the true intent of 2A. Silly arguments such as if people should possess nuclear weapons, destructive devices etc ensue.  They go that extent of questioning because they know the answer - YES, its an individual right.

 

The reason many "try" to dig meaning and interpretations is much simpler and related to basic psychology. We all tend to think "we" (but no one else) are the best keepers of power. It happens with all of us all the time.  Even strong 2A groups have this "fissure" among them, in terms of debating whether "someone" else can be trusted with firearms, manner of carrying, limitations of carrying etc.  Only those who understand the true concept of free person, can really understand 2A and its meaning. Everyone else just looks for interpretation that would fit their view.

 

Freedom of speech, Due Process, 2A, all are created with single intent i.e provide verbal, legal and physical means of self defense (first) and defense of their free state.   If the argument is that 2A only applies to State, then we might as well apply the same to First and Due Process and let State talk on behalf of individuals, let State decide fate of individuals without due process.

 

</end of rant>