no evidence of individual right to a gun, when our nation was founded, except through implication

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 45
Topic's author
#31
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

also, the bill of rights was ratified long before this. i think this must be referring to a state specific event. there are plenty of states the considered gun rights in their state constitutions and rejected the idea. doesn't really make as much sense if they thought gun rights were already protected.

#32
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgim
i think this must be referring to a state specific event. there are plenty of states the considered gun rights in their state constitutions and rejected the idea. doesn't really make as much sense if they thought gun rights were already protected.
That is one of the sillier things you've said, how about you read some of those state constitutions. Everyone I've read is extremely similar to the federal in preamble and discussions of rights and principles.
Topic's author
#33
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
if you actually had evidence that states protected gun rights in their constitution that's persuasive evidence. but i doubt you can provide that evidence. 

i dont know how you can read this entire thread and think you guys actually still have a coherent point. 
#34
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgim
You seriously just skipped past everyone's points that disprove your points and then repeated your points without addressing the rebuttals. Nice job of using logic there
Topic's author
#35
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
u must not have read my replies
#36
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgim
Well you didn't get my point, so I'll make it more explicit:

You cannot infer from the desire to enumerate a right in a state constitution that it was perceived not to exist in the federal constitution. They did not think that way, they were writing constitutions for sovereign states that had to be complete in on themselves and even if they weren't there is nothing wrong with saying the same thing twice.

As for 'evidence' your interpretation of "bearing and keeping arms" is somehow not an individual right deletes evidence. They did not know that you would be unable to understand what those words meant so they never knew they had to describe it in an alternative way.

For instance if in 200 years somebody claims that "abortion" actually meant collective right and not an individual right nobody could ever find any contemporary source describing abortion without using the word "abortion". A person has an abortion, not a collective.

The fact is that at the time it was so well understood to be an individual right that no controversies arose because no government would ever dream of trying to bar ownership. A person owns a gun, not a collective. The collective ownership of weapons was a well known phenomenon at the time, they called it the continental army; and that is not the language they used.
Topic's author
#37
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
it looks like u r just ignoring everything i said. 

-the phrase "bear arms" historically meant to use a gun in a militia. the preface of the amendment says the purpose regards militias.

also, it is very weak to argue that right to a gun was so well established that no one talked about it. what, they slipped, fell, and accidentally wrote the second amendment with the intent to give everyone a right to a gun, but never talked about it? every right in the constitution they talked about the purpose. they wouldn't have not did the same with the right to a gun. it's too far fetched. you can't just ignore this point and reiterate your point, if you want your argument to be coherent. 

Topic's author
#38
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
i accept your sub point, that maybe we can't read a lot into why states did or didn't protect gun points in the state constitutions. 

but i do think u were trying to say states did protect gun rights? when there's little evidence for that. maybe i misunderstood your point. 
#39
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgim
the phrase "bear arms" historically meant to use a gun in a militia.
Make an argument. I sometimes follow links out of curiosity but I have no duty to respond to an assertion + link pattern. References are for pure data, like a link to the imagine or transcription of an original document in this case.

also, it is very weak to argue that right to a gun was so well established that no one talked about it.
Not in combination with the fact of nearly universal exercise of that right. After all it doesn't say you have a right to wear clothes in public does it?

You only need to say there is such a right when somebody is trying to strip everyone. That someone was the British Empire, hence the 2nd ammendment.

what, they slipped, fell, and accidentally wrote the second amendment with the intent to give everyone a right to a gun, but never talked about it?
The 2nd amendment is them talking about it. Saying things like "people is plural therefore it doesn't apply to individuals" 200 years later is picking at straws like sexual deviants and shell-fish guzzlers picking at straws in Leviticus.


every right in the constitution they talked about the purpose. they wouldn't have not did the same with the right to a gun.
They did specify the purpose, it's the first sentence. The purpose is to counter-attack oppressive governments.
Topic's author
#40
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
the link shows a study, that almost every time the phrase "bear arms" was used in the founding days, it meant to use a gun in a militia. 

it doesn't say we can wear clothes in the founding fathers days, but also, no one is trying to make the argument there's an amendment that says people have a right to wear clothes. if there was such an amendment, you can be sure there would be outside evidence for the purpose outside the amendment, of being able to wear clothes. 

if the second amendment is talking about a right to a gun, there would be evidence that the founding fathers supported that right. there is no such evidence. the amendment wouldn't just magically get written with that intent, without there being outside evidence for it. 

they specified a purpose for a militia, but they didn't specify a purpose for everyone having a right to a gun even, especially if they aren't in a militia. 

at the very least, you seem to be admitting that your argument about the right to a gun, can only be implied historically, given there's no evidence outside of one possible interpretation of the amendment. the way gun nuts express it, there's nothing clearer than the right to a gun, when all evidence is the opposite of that. 

your argument is ridiculous.

you guys simply lack critical thinking. 
Topic's author
#41
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
James Madison's original proposal even included a conscientious objector clause: “No person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
Topic's author
#42
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
What about today’s gun-rights debates? Surpris­ingly, there is not a single word about an indi­vidual right to a gun for self-defense in the notes from the Consti­tu­tional Conven­tion; nor with scattered excep­tions in the tran­scripts of the rati­fic­a­tion debates in the states; nor on the floor of the U.S. House of Repres­ent­at­ives as it marked up the Second Amend­ment, where every single speaker talked about the mili­tia. James Madis­on’s original proposal even included a conscien­tious objector clause: “No person reli­giously scru­pu­lous of bear­ing arms shall be compelled to render milit­ary service in person.”
and more
#43
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
that could be read as a collective right, or an individual right.
As per procon.org, which lists their meticulous and thorough citation work in the references section of the article:

A 1792 federal law required that every man eligible for militia service own a gun and ammunition suitable for military service, report for frequent inspection of their guns, and register his gun ownership on public records. [101] Many Americans owned hunting rifles or pistols instead of proper military guns, and even though the penalty fines were high (over $9,000 in 2014 dollars), they were levied inconsistently and the public largely ignored the law. [1]
Furthermore, the National Constitution Center, which is one of the preeminent organizations for constitutional study, write in their commentaries on the 2nd Amendment:

Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training. [2]
Moreover, the Library of Congress's Annotated Constitution states:

Historical surveys of the Second Amendment often trace its roots, at least in part, through the English Bill of Rights of 1689,1 which declared that subjects, which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law.2 That provision grew out of friction over the English Crown’s efforts to use loyal militias to control and disarm dissidents and enhance the Crown’s standing army, among other things, prior to the Glorious Revolution that supplanted King James II in favor of William and Mary.3
The early American experience with militias and military authority would inform what would become the Second Amendment as well. In Founding-era America, citizen militias drawn from the local community existed to provide for the common defense, and standing armies of professional soldiers were viewed by some with suspicion.4 The Declaration of Independence listed as greivances against King George III that he had affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power and had kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.5 [3]
So as can be seen through America's history, the 2nd Amendment was understood as an individual right of ownership when the 2nd Amendment was written. So much so, that the Federal Government passed a law requiring every American citizen to own a military-grade weapon so they could be furnished for a standing army at a moment's notice.

SOURCES:

#44
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgim
the link shows a study, that almost every time the phrase "bear arms" was used in the founding days, it meant to use a gun in a militia. 
Bearing arms certainly could be expected to be correlated with a militia since a militia must be full of people bearing arms. It cannot be inferred from that correlation that the phrase "bear arms" is meaningless outside of the context of a militia.

Since the invasion of Ukraine the word "invasion" has been correlated with "Ukraine" and "Russia" in the set of all publications and recorded discussions, but that does not mean that "invasion" has no meaning outside of those contexts and subsequently that if you see a historical document calling for "invasion" that they are calling for the invasion of Ukraine.


if the second amendment is talking about a right to a gun, there would be evidence that the founding fathers supported that right.
There is, some in this thread have already provided quotes.


they specified a purpose for a militia, but they didn't specify a purpose for everyone having a right to a gun even, especially if they aren't in a militia. 
Yes they did, a preface clause as an justification in that form was extremely common then and is still seen today.

A cake needing flour, it millers should be allowed to grind grain.

The justification for the right was the militia, the militia's justification is destroying oppressive governments. The reason they made it a right and not a privilege is because it would defeat the purpose of the militia if a potentially oppressive government decided when it needed to be destroyed.

The right to self-defense is not part of the 2nd amendment, it was at that time already deeply entrenched in common law. The only interaction between them is that you have a right to defend yourself and you have a right own and carry a gun. The combination of the two rights means you have a right to shoot someone to defend yourself.

at the very least, you seem to be admitting that your argument about the right to a gun, can only be implied historically, given there's no evidence outside of one possible interpretation of the amendment.
I admit no such thing. The plain English reading of the 2nd amendment is clearly the establishment of a natural right to weapons. Arms and weapons are synonyms. Guns are weapons and thus arms.

You challenge that reading using the historical claim that "bearing arms" didn't mean "carry weapons" back then. Of course if you make a historical claim like that the only response addresses the history you claim.

If you claimed that "freedom of the press" meant freedom to press apple juice out of apples in the context of the writing of the amendment that would be another historical claim.

the way gun nuts express it, there's nothing clearer than the right to a gun
It's one of the clearer ones.

when all evidence is the opposite of that. 
I haven't seen any evidence against that interpretation being the original intention.
#45
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@n8nrgim
the phrase "bear arms" historically meant to use a gun in a militia. the preface of the amendment says the purpose regards militias.
"bear arms" is defined as: : to carry or possess arms


Historically that phrase meant any weapon that could be used for offense or defense in support of the state and/or nation. Citizens even had their own small version of a cannon, if they could afford it (or acquired it through other means). 

Weapon is all encompassing; it was never limited to the use of merely "a gun."