Our Founding Fathers' perspective on citizens and guns.

SunnySlopes

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
1,223
I found it interesting. You might, as well.

[begin excerpt]

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined...”
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

“To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“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.”
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

” The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”
- Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

“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

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

“For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.”
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
 
Of course but I fear gun owners that say we need to "compromise" or need "reasonable" laws.

We are our own worst enemy at times and the times are always changing!

When people let their "feels" get in the way, everyone's rights will suffer.
 
Very good post. We all need to be reminded of what things were like and the effort it took to create this nation.

Much of the above is considered sedition by a huge percentage of our current administrstion. There have been reports that quoting our founding fathers is considered to be an act of terrorism. We as a nation have fallen so low.

Makes me glad that I won't live long enough to see the final fall.
 
Well anyone of us that went to school went they still taught history knows what happened when the British attempted to take them away from one little town named Concord. Now we have i---no, I will be PC and say clueless people that think we should have none and are actively working toward that end. Clueless is misleading as many of them know exactly what they are working for and that is to make the citizens powerless.

We have modern examples of just how that works beginning with Hitler and now in Venezuela.
 
Last edited:
Tench Coxe (May 22, 1755 – July 17, 1824) never gets the attention he deserves

The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.
  • Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia.
Every free man has a right to the use of the press, so he has to the use of his arms.
 
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
Yes. Our founders framed the government with the judicial branch to "check the balance of powers" when legislative and executive branches write bills and pass them into laws that are unconstitutional.

When that happens, the highest court of the law, the Supreme Court has the final say ... because the founders framed the government that way intentionally. When states kept writing and passing unconstitutional laws that violated the First Amendment, Supreme Court kept ruling them unconstitutional and eventually, permanent enforcement came the way of federal/state laws - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...eme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment

So now "modern" forms of free speech like email/text are protected by the First Amendment at federal and state levels.

And since justice Thomas said the Second Amendment is not a "second class right", same will happen for the Second Amendment so "modern" types of arms like magazine fed semi-auto firearms/pistol brace, etc. (Along with scopes/red dot sights to aid those with visual limitations) are protected by the Second Amendment at federal and state levels.
  • In Heller, Supreme Court ruled we can keep and bear arms inside our homes unattached to the militia service
  • In Caetano, Supreme Court ruled "modern" types of arms are protected by the Second Amendment
  • In Bruen, Supreme Court ruled we can bear arms outside our homes and states now carry the burden to prove whether current regulations are in accordance to "Text, history and tradition" to analogous regulations at the time of ratification of Bill of Rights ... For example, CA attorneys could not come up with analogous evidence for Duncan case where they had to clearly explain how and why 11 round magazine is dangerous and unusual when 10 round magazine is not - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-14#post-12721871
  • And we got plenty of 2A cases lined up for the Supreme Court (Bianchi/Miller, Duncan, VanDerStok, Mock, etc. etc.)
Long live the republic.
 
Last edited:
Based on the Founders' statements, as listed in the OP, there's a very good argument that the NFA '34, the GCA '68, and every other piece of federal gun control legislation, is unconstitutional. The problem is that the Supreme Court -- including the so-called "originalist" members -- would not accept that argument. Even Justice Scalia, in the Heller case, went out of his way to single out machine guns as bannable.
 
Of course but I fear gun owners that say we need to "compromise" or need "reasonable" laws.

We are our own worst enemy at times and the times are always changing!

When people let their "feels" get in the way, everyone's rights will suffer.
Yep especially when the government is forbidden from any infringements. The citizens have stupidly allowed them to happen.
 
Circumstances have undeniably changed since 1791, particularly in the way the nation's defense is structured. The universal citizens' militia, as envisaged by the Founders, hasn't existed since the 1820's. That's why a cogent 2nd Amendment argument has to rely on legal fictions. But that's OK, because lawyers (and Supreme Court Justices) love legal fictions.
 
Circumstances have undeniably changed since 1791, particularly in the way the nation's defense is structured. The universal citizens' militia, as envisaged by the Founders, hasn't existed since the 1820's. That's why a cogent 2nd Amendment argument has to rely on legal fictions. But that's OK, because lawyers (and Supreme Court Justices) love legal fictions.
But that premise of changing history does not recognize that human nature does not change.

There will always be people who are, lacking a better concept, "bossy."

Usually their "bossiness," is justified in their own minds as "for your own good" in one form or another, from, mildly, "eat your vegetables" to "lebensraum." (That pretty much covers the spectrum, mais non?) Nutshell-wise, that is called "authoriarianism."

Bossiness engenders the desire to actually be in authority... from City Council members to King(s) Of The World. This needs no example or illustration, being patently obvious from history. Even recent history. I hold that truth to be self-evident. <grin>

Sooner or later, under the rubric of the Declaration of Independence...

"...all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government..."

The rectitude of that statement is considered to be part of our Founding Documents, and does not change with the mere whim of the public or the ascendancy of some City Council member to the level of Absolute Despot.

Pursuant to the above, we have various Truisms expressed by the inventors of our country and in popular culture, such as...

The tree of liberty must from time to time be nourished by the blood of tyrants.

We have given you a Republic, Ma'am, if you can keep it.

No free man shall be debarred the use of arms.

You will notice I did not use quotes, since the wisdom expressed should be self evident to any person who considers infringements on liberty to be reprehensible.

Thus, while referring to the "militia," which has been destroyed by legislative definition in the meantime, it is obvious to me that the second Amendment does not only apply to foreign interests taking over our country...

...nay, it applies to "all enemies, foreign and domestic.

So I repeat, "But that premise of changing history does not recognize that human nature does not change."

Terry, 230RN
 
Last edited:
What's interesting is that some of those quotes make it clear that the intent was for people to be armed with military-type weapons--directly contradicting the common claim today that military-type weapons were never meant to be protected by the Constitution.

People believe what they want to believe.
 
What's interesting is that some of those quotes make it clear that the intent was for people to be armed with military-type weapons--directly contradicting the common claim today that military-type weapons were never meant to be protected by the Constitution.

People believe what they want to believe.

Yes, but what they believe is strongly influenced by unending repetition. Guns is bad, guns is bad, guns is bad, guns is bad...

"...directly contradicting the common claim today that military-type weapons were never meant to be protected by the Constitution."

That phenomenon was more-or-less covered sometime before 1984 by George "I nailed it, didn't ?" Orwell's: "doublethink."

Some may object to that use of the word "doublethink" but I see it as an acceptable expansion of its meaning.

The earlier term was "stupidity," which is still used today.
 
Last edited:
People believe what they want to believe.
human nature does not change ... There will always be people who are ... "bossy." ... human nature does not change
So true ... sad but true.

OP's quotes were spoken and written by colonials fresh from fighting off monarchy rule of England where the "colonists" didn't have representation that royal subjects in England had. And the final straw was taxation for a war colonists were not involved in yet was forced to pay for by multiple taxes, often on the same item (Import tax, sales tax, usage tax, etc.). Many colonists were OK with being "represented" taxed royal subjects up to that point. But not OK with taxation without representation (Essentially becoming "second class" royal subjects and justice Thomas said in Bruen ruling that the Second Amendment is "not a second class right").

... all enemies, foreign and domestic.
And human nature does not change, sadly.

In similar fashion to "Lord of the Flies" story, newly freed royal subjects, now US citizens, immediately started to impose majority mob rule of larger city states on the rights of minority smaller rural states.

Remember that the Constitution was initially written without Bill of Rights? And the Bill of Rights was ADDED later to ensure the minority rights of smaller rural states were protected.

And without the Second Amendment, it doesn't matter whether there is a First Amendment. I recall a group of lady shooters who signed up for defensive training class impressed by how polite all the male shooters were. I commented, "Ma,am, that's because everyone is holding a loaded gun" with a wink and she went, "Oh" with a big smile and a nod. And the SWAT instructor/trainer expressed "God created man but Sam Colt made them equal". ;)

Republic ... if you can keep it.
And just as during colonial days, in 20204, majority mob rule of larger coastal city states are demanding popular vote, taxation mandate (Didn't the Supreme Court rule that ACA mandate was a "tax"?), to me student loan forgiveness is preferential treatment of "some" students as another taxation (Tax payers will eventually pay for hundreds of billions of dollars), censorship of free speech (MSM and social media are hard at work of denying First Amendment by mob rule) and taking guns away by the way of anti-2A laws by the states.

Sadly, not much has changed in 248 years.

Thankfully, because the founders didn't trust the mob rule of larger city states, we have Electoral College instead of Popular Vote and two senators from each state who can veto unconstitutional laws passed by population controlled House.

It must have been destiny in 2016 to allow "We the People" to nominate justices to the Supreme Court so rulings for Second Amendment like Bruen mandate of "text, history and tradition" with burden shifted to the states could continue after Heller and Caetano. Thankfully and hopefully the Supreme Court justices will continue to rule along founding fathers' perspective as shared by @SunnySlopes.

Long live the Republic.
 
What's interesting is that some of those quotes make it clear that the intent was for people to be armed with military-type weapons--directly contradicting the common claim today that military-type weapons were never meant to be protected by the Constitution.
Exactly.

For most of the country's history (until the 2008 Heller case), the common assumption was that the 2nd Amendment RKBA was somehow tied to service in the militia. (Meaning that the common military weapons would be covered.) But by the same token, based on the writings of the Founders, the 1791 concept of the "militia" included basically everyone. That was the "2nd Amendment militia" or the "universal militia." So, indirectly, the 2nd guaranteed the individual ownership of military weapons. That was the clear implication of the 1939 Miller case. Justice Scalia blew that whole theory to smithereens. Some people here still call him a friend of gun owners.
 
The issue today is that life in this country as we know it is simply too easy for most. There is little challenge for childen growing up unless they are born into extreme poverty (though even in some regions, the poor still live indoors, have hot and cold running water, microwave ovens, flat-screen televisions. Children do not grow up having to fetch freshwater from a lake or stream 400 yards or two miles from their cabin; they do not have to learn how to hunt game, kill it, dress it, butcher it and cook it over wood fires. Clothing is available for any climate. For those that desire to work, employment is readily available.

For children growing up in some of our most dangerous cities (e.g., Chicago), illegal guns are readily available, yet for those that wish to abide by the law, difficult to obtain. But only the non-gun owners seem to obsess about this. The guns are blamed for the violence whilst the criminals' path through the justice system is a revolving door.

No one these days has to defend themselves from dangerous animals or marauding Indian tribes or roving bands of bandits (mostly). Generations have grown up unaccustomed to having to go forth in public or outdoors armed. Even should our government grow more tyrannical (some would argue it already is), most of the populace is so comfortable that few would even dream of a revolution.

Absent some sort of apocalyptic event of epic proportions or, even more unlikely, millions upon millions of Americans suddenly reading and comprehending the Constitution, we shall never see support for the RKBA such as discussed in the Federalist Papers or the other writings of the days of our Founding Fathers.

The OP contains thoughts we should all review regularly. But when I read the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Mason, Hamilton, et al, I often grow depressed, for we shall never see their like again, nor will the people ever again have the gumption to say, "No more."
 
Last edited:
The militiaman provided his own firearm, the only requirement was it could not be "bastard bore" in the language of the day. I.e., .supposed to be .75 caliber. How rigorously that was enforced, ?
 
Back
Top