Gun control examples in early america
Question for 2nd Amendment Advocates...
Posts
Total:
43
Citing Halbrook, Amar concluded "militia" means "all Citizens capable of bearing arms" because that is how the term was then understood.6 What Amar seemed not to recognize, or at least did not acknowledge, is that "militia" is defined in the Constitution itself.6 The founders disagreed about how the militia ought to be organized. For example, 60. See Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, 101 YALE L.J. 1193, 1205-11, 1261-62 (1992) [hereinafter Amar, Fourteenth Amendment]; Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights as a Constitution, 100 YALE L.J. 1131, 1162-75 (1991) [hereinafter Amar, Constitution]; see also AKHIL REED AMAR, THE BILL OF RIGHTS: CREATION AND RECONSTRUCTION 46-59 (1998). 61. Amar, Constitution, supra note 60, at 1164. 62. Id. at 1165. 63. Id. at 1165-66. 64. Id. at 1166. 65. The Constitution provides: The Congress shall have Power... 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. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8. CHICAGO-KENT LAW REVIEW Madison favored a universal militia while Hamilton argued for a select militia. 66 However, they agreed as a constitutional matter to leave this up to Congress; and the Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to organize the militia. Thus, the militia is what Congress decides it is, regardless of whether it differs from an eighteenth-century model. Currently, the militia is indisputably the National Guard because Congress has so decided 67 (and Amar's suggestion notwithstanding, no one reasonably contends the militia includes SWAT teams). If Amar wrestled directly with Congress's power to define the militia, he might be forced to reconsider his insurrectionist view. How can the armed militia be a bulwark against governmental tyranny if it is organized and regulated by the government itself?
Do you think, seriously, that it was by accident that the right to bear arms was listed second only to the right to freely speak, think and communicate with the body politic?
No I don't, nor is this question relavant to the conversation. We're taking about what the amendment actually means, not it's level of importance.
Madison emphasized the importance of the American people's individual right to bear arms as a point of express contrast between the United States and "the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe," comprised of governments that "[we]re afraid to trust the people with arms," (quoting Federalist No. 46).
We are not reading the same Federalist No. 46:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.. . .Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
No where in this does he talk about the individuals right, and every single time he talks about the means by which the people would defend themselves from government overreach he specifically describes that defense as being carried out by an organized malitia with officers chosen by local governments.
Your quote above simply relates to the burden of achieving a militia that was, in fact, "well regulated." It has nothing whatsoever to do with any restraint on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Any such reading is absurd, to the point of being nonsensical.
I never said the quote talked about restraint on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, I pointed out how it is not addressing the individual at all. The amendment addresses the right of the organized malitia.
-->
@n8nrgim
Your ignorance is exceeded only by the degree of your ostentation. I pity you. If at some point in the future you learn to write coherent sentences, feel free to reply to what I wrote.
-->
@Double_R
Do a control+f for what I quoted in what you linked, and get back to me.
-->
@n8nrgim
You could own a cannon back then.
Most people used them to protect their boats.
-->
@n8nrgim
Biden said, "You weren't allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual."
The campaign was unable to come up with an example of a law banning private ownership of cannons, and historians of the period doubt that any existed. To the contrary, there are documented instances of privateers, or privately owned vessels, setting sail with cannons during the period.
The statement: False.
-->
@coal
Do a control+f for what I quoted in what you linked, and get back to me.
Or, you could just engage in the dialog. Nothing I said was complicated.
-->
@Double_R
I have provided you quotes to the article you linked, which you thereafter contested the veracity of. Admit the quotes are correct, or any "dialogue" is a waste of time.
I think coal has reading comprehension issues... U would think if the founders gave everyone a right to a gun, they might have mentioned something in the historical record about everyone having a right to a gun.
-->
@n8nrgim
You would also assume that some ancient founders would be considered relics that may have been wrong about a thing or two but oh no that is so rude to say or consider, let us worship them.
-->
@coal
I have provided you quotes to the article you linked, which you thereafter contested the veracity of. Admit the quotes are correct, or any "dialogue" is a waste of time.
I didn't contest the veracity of the quotes. How on earth you arrived at that conclusion is beyond me. I contested your interpretation of the quotes. And since your interpretation is what we're talking about I don't need to look elsewhere to get answers. You're the one making these claims, support your claims.
Mainly, we differ on whether the second amendment and any of the documented discussions surrounding it were meant to establish the un-fringable right of individual Americans to own arms vs that of the "well regulated malitia's" which is referring to members of the organized group.
-->
@Double_R
With your clarification that you don't contest the veracity of what I quoted, ok.
But your understanding of a militia, how it works and specifically how it worked in/around the time of the country's founding; in addition to how it differs from a standing army, as per the Federalist Papers we have both cited, is incorrect. If you are interested in understanding the history behind this, there are secondary sources to which I can direct you. I understand that most people didn't spend substantial parts of their lives doing research on this subject, though I did and I'm happy to point you in the direction of materials you can consider for yourself. I don't think what I tell you will change your mind, so I would rather refer you to published material others have prepared.
I will be very frank with you on this subject as well. For almost all of my life, before I started going through the historical record for myself, I thought "well regulated militia" meant that there was no general constitutional right to self defense, that most if not all restrictions on the possession, use and sale of firearms was constitutionally permissible and any objection to the contrary was frivolous right-wing nonsense. That's because the way the Second Amendment is worded, one can reach that conclusion on the face of the plain text without difficulty.
But that interpretation is wrong. It is wrong legally and it is wrong historically.