Our Founding Fathers' perspective on citizens and guns.

BLACKHAWKNJ said:
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, ?
Click to expand...
There had to be a uniformity of arms, even among the militia. The standard went to cal. .69, after the mass influx of French arms starting in 1779. Cal. .69 remained the U.S. standard for muskets, from the Model 1795 until 1855. That's quite a span of years!

Private ownership of a miscellany of weapons, by the militia, turned out to be no more practical than the universal militia itself. It was a failure in the War of 1812, and by the 1820's it had been totally supplanted by volunteer militia units made up of the most dedicated individuals, armed by the states and indirectly by the federal government.

Still, we have to turn our time machine back to 1791, if we are to derive any "originalist" meaning from the 2nd Amendment. (The Founders had some quaint idealistic notions.)
 
AlexanderA said:
There had to be a uniformity of arms, even among the militia. The standard went to cal. .69, after the mass influx of French arms starting in 1779. Cal. .69 remained the U.S. standard for muskets, from the Model 1795 until 1855. That's quite a span of years!
Click to expand...
I was a history minor in my undergrad years, I had a prof who'd been a Vietnam era Army officer who was a true firearms buff. His U.S. History before 1865 course was truly awesome. WIsh I'd kept some of my notes (as it was the mid-'70s, lots of my classmates were either vets or otherwise firearms aficionados). I remember all of the chicks, and the non-gun guys in the class, used to roll their eyes when we went down the rabbit holes discussing weapons and tactics of the Revolution and Civil War.
 
AlexanderA said:
...

Still, we have to turn our time machine back to 1791, if we are to derive any "originalist" meaning from the 2nd Amendment. (The Founders had some quaint idealistic notions.)
Click to expand...
Really? How so?

Would you suggest a revamping / frevision of that original language?

Terry, 230RN
 
SunnySlopes said:
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
Click to expand...
Liberal ‘revisionist’ historians dispute the authenticity and/or accuracy of several of those quotes. … Just FYI.
 
230RN said:
AlexanderA said:
(The Founders had some quaint idealistic notions.)
Really? How so?
Click to expand...
Well, for one thing, they thought that national defense could be based on throngs of half-trained militia, with no standing army. They rather quickly learned that this wouldn't work.

Another thing is that they never imagined that the Supreme Court would be the final arbiter of the constitutionality of laws. That was an innovation by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison.

And they didn't imagine the role of organized political parties.
230RN said:
Would you suggest a revamping / revision of that original language?
Click to expand...
No, because although the 2nd is based on a legal fiction (the supposed militia system), it's a useful legal fiction.
 
I found this interesting, as well. "If you can't guarantee that this country won't become totalitarian, then the gun control debate is over! I'LL NEVER GIVE UP MY GUNS!"

(View video)
youtu.be

David Hogg Gets Destroyed By Chinese Immigrant On Gun Control

Never in a million years did I think a Chinese woman would utterly destroy the poster child of gun control's entire argument with one question. How did he ge...
youtu.be youtu.be
 
The role of an armed populace was also to be guarantor against emergence of an out-of-
control governing authority.

It is in that regard it is the entire scope of the Federalist Papers' arguments that are central
to understanding why the various independent States permitted the ceding of power to a
central government.

2A is therefore a People-centered power, not merely focused on a militia alone.
 
Last edited:
Reply / Post # 31:
AlexanderA said:
Well, for one thing, they thought that national defense could be based on throngs of half-trained militia, with no standing army. They rather quickly learned that this wouldn't work.

Another thing is that they never imagined that the Supreme Court would be the final arbiter of the constitutionality of laws. That was an innovation by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison.

And they didn't imagine the role of organized political parties.

No, because although the 2nd is based on a legal fiction (the supposed militia system), it's a useful legal fiction.
Click to expand...

I'll let that stand on its own merits.

Terry, 230RN
 
230RN said:
I'll let that stand on its own merits.
Click to expand...
I'd kinda glossed that statement of Alex's as it's not an uncommon viewpoint. I remember my Constitutional Law prof my senior year of college telling me during a seminar that if you got a roomful of Con Law professors together to discuss, for example, the intent of the framers of the Constitution on certain articles, they'd argue for days and probably still not agree on anything... Let's face it, when it comes to "interpreting" the Constitution, most interpret the articles from within their own political biases and beliefs.
AlexanderA said:
Another thing is that they never imagined that the Supreme Court would be the final arbiter of the constitutionality of laws.
Click to expand...

Gonna have to disagree a little here. Federalist Paper No.78, Alexander Hamilton confirmed the importance of this role for the judiciary, clearly writing it'd act as an intermediary between the people and the legislature.

Most scholars have concluded that the ability for the judiciary to check the constitutionality of legislation is largely accepted as having been firmly within the intentions of the framers.

Marbury in 1803 only confirmed the Court’s power of judicial review.
 
Old Dog said:
Let's face it, when it comes to "interpreting" the Constitution, most interpret the articles from within their own political biases and beliefs.
Click to expand...
True ... Sad but true.

Old Dog said:
AlexanderA said:
[Founders] never imagined that the Supreme Court would be the final arbiter of the constitutionality of laws.
Click to expand...
Gonna have to disagree a little here. Federalist Paper No.78, Alexander Hamilton confirmed the importance of this role for the judiciary, clearly writing it'd act as an intermediary between the people and the legislature ... Most scholars have concluded that the ability for the judiciary to check the constitutionality of legislation is largely accepted as having been firmly within the intentions of the framers.
Click to expand...
That is my sentiment also.

I believe the founders understood the evils of absolute monarchy rule as well as the evils of majority mob rule of pure democracy as demonstrated by Roman/Greek civilizations.

The founders were well aware of both forms of government and rejected them both. After winning the Revolutionary War, some colonials wanted to make George Washington the king (True story) but that would return the colonists as monarchy subjects again and not free citizens. And pure democracy where each colonist had equal vote would turn the government into mob rule where larger city states would have majority rule over the minority smaller rural states.

In the end, founders chose Constitutional Representative Republic form of government to give "We the People" the power of government through representation (Remember? Revolutionary war was triggered by "Taxation without representation"? ;)). And the Bill of Rights was ADDED later to the Constitution to ensure the majority larger city states could not take away certain rights from the minority smaller rural states as specified in the Amendments.

With majority mob rule of House of representatives likely to write bills that favored larger city states (And they have for decades), founders decided Senate with equal two senator representation from each state, regardless of population size, would approve/veto bills passed by mob rule House to protect the smaller rural states (And they have for decades).

And when both legislative and executive branches passed unconstitutional laws AGAINST minority smaller rural states, the founders chose to have the judicial branch with the Supreme Court having the final say to PROTECT the rights and interest of minority (As already demonstrated for First Amendment, slaves and women with addition of Amendments and now for minority gun owners ... Yes, "We the People" did this and will do it again).

That's why we have Electoral College, Senate with equal representation for each state regardless of population size and the Supreme Court to over rule legislative and executive branches ... Because the founders SAW the downfall of previous civilizations and they didn't want to repeat another failed civilization.

Mob rule of majority already tried to impose on the First Amendment rights by passing unconstitutional state law after state law BUT THEY FAILED as the Supreme Court stepped in and ruled them unconstitutional ultimately leading to permanent enforcement by the way of federal and state laws - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...eme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment

And now "modern" forms of free speech like email/text are protected by the First Amendment. Period. Done deal.

And in 2024, mob rule of majority once again is trying to impose on the Second Amendment rights by passing unconstitutional state law after state law BUT THEY WILL FAIL AGAIN as the Supreme Court has stepped in and ruled them unconstitutional in Heller, Caetano and Bruen (Soon to follow by Bianchi, Miller, Duncan, Rhode, VanDerStock, Mock, etc.) ultimately leading to permanent enforcement by the way of federal and state laws.

And soon, "modern" types of arms like magazine fed semi-auto firearms with pistol braces will be protected by the Second Amendment.

How and why?

Because the Second Amendment is not a "second class right". ;)👍
 
Last edited:
Old Dog said:
Federalist Paper No.78, Alexander Hamilton confirmed the importance of this role for the judiciary, clearly writing it'd act as an intermediary between the people and the legislature.
Click to expand...
From supremecourt.gov - https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

The Supreme Court of the United States ... is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States.​
​
As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.​
​
The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation ... "I am unaware that any nation of the globe has hitherto organized a judicial power in the same manner as the Americans ... A more imposing judicial power was never constituted by any people."​
​
... The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document ... to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens ... To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government ... genius of the American system of government.​
​
... Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.​
​
While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers ...​
 
Militias were really intended only for local defense. There were problems in the War of 1812-the campaigns of 1812-where the militia refused to serve outside the United States, in the First English Civil War the New Model Army was created because trying to rely on local levies usually didn't work-in addition to problems of drill, discipline and leadership there were also serious logistical problems. In the Civil War the Confederate militias were usually the under-and overaged, those who had somehow escaped the conscription officers-the well connected, e.g. Where properly employed-Bunker Hill, Cowpens, e.g. they could be effective. At Cowpens Morgan put his militia in the front line, told them to give him 2 volleys, then they could run.
 
SunnySlopes said:
I found this interesting, as well. "If you can't guarantee that this country won't become totalitarian, then the gun control debate is over! I'LL NEVER GIVE UP MY GUNS!"

(View video)
youtu.be

David Hogg Gets Destroyed By Chinese Immigrant On Gun Control

Never in a million years did I think a Chinese woman would utterly destroy the poster child of gun control's entire argument with one question. How did he ge...
youtu.be youtu.be
Click to expand...

Colin has a "way with words", but he is right when he points out that long-time "residents" do NOT value out freedoms the way that people (like this Chinese immigrant lady) value them.
I would willing to bet that Hogg was never in Boy Scouts. If he was, he has forgotten that important mantra of the Scouts - to "Be prepared".
 
By the way, April 19th is coming up. Wasn't that the day, in 1775, a bunch of poorly armed, underfed, undisciplined Colonist militiamen trounced the hell out of the well-armed, well-trained, well disciplined, well-fed regular army British soldiers?

Can someone cast doubt and negative insinuations on that feat of the "militia?"

I'm reminded of the saying, "If you can own a gun, you're a citizen. If you cannot, you are a subject."

And there are those among us who would prefer that you were a subject.

Terry, 230RN
 
Last edited:
Speaking of dates in April, for those interested, there is a planned march on the ILL-ANNOY capitol for the Illinois Gun Owner's Lobby Day aka IGOLD ON Thursday, the 18th. Activities start at the Prairie State Convention Center about 10 a.m., followed by a march through city streets to the State House. Then we move through the halls and deliver postcards to the various legislators, most of whom are AWOL. Weather looks to be good with highs in the low 60s. Come and join the "fun". 😄
 
JTHunter said:
Speaking of dates in April, for those interested, there is a planned march on the ILL-ANNOY capitol for the Illinois Gun Owner's Lobby Day aka IGOLD ON Thursday, the 18th. Activities start at the Prairie State Convention Center about 10 a.m., followed by a march through city streets to the State House. Then we move through the halls and deliver postcards to the various legislators, most of whom are AWOL. Weather looks to be good with highs in the low 60s. Come and join the "fun". 😄
Click to expand...

Oh, boy. Do I see another January 6th incident? My crystal ball is cloudy on that one.

crystal-ball-clouds-obscuring-future-fortune-teller-s-predictions-love-wealth-health-obscured-cloudy-151456727.jpg


For the full, unbiased, no-adjectives, no BS description of the January 6th event, see:

 
230RN said:
"...directly contradicting the common claim today that military-type weapons were never meant to be protected by the Constitution."
Click to expand...
Is this what was meant by Joe Biden saying in 2020 the people cannot buy a cannon. And yet they are for sale today at Dixie Gun works.
 
Thomasss said:
Is this what was meant by Joe Biden saying in 2020 the people cannot buy a cannon. And yet they are for sale today at Dixie Gun works.
Click to expand...
Never mind the cannon that are being sold at Dixie Gun Works (muzzleloaders). Modern cannon ("Destructive Devices") can be owned with payment of a mere $200 NFA tax. Remember, these weren't affected by the Hughes Amendment.

Military weapons are precisely what are protected by the 2nd Amendment. In 1791, the ownership of ordinary civilian guns wasn't controversial at all, and therefore an Amendment wouldn't have been necessary to protect them.
 
doubleh said:
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.
Click to expand...
I can add a long list of countries nowadays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
What the founding fathers thought about "gun control"
Replies
19
Views
2K
Gungnir
G
T
  • Locked
Founding Father's Intention & Purpose of the *Right to Bear Arms
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Roswell 1847
R
<*(((><
  • Locked
"My hand trembles, but my heart does not."
2 3
Replies
56
Views
4K
<*(((><
<*(((><
N
  • Locked
Quotes from the Founding Fathers (Long)
Replies
1
Views
402
Sam1911
S
S
  • Locked
2A Supporting Quotes
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
berettaprofessor
berettaprofessor
Back
Top