second amendment history

Status
Not open for further replies.
RancidSumo, you're probably no longer around, but here's a response:

"The importance of this article [the Second Amendment] will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers." [emphasis added]

From Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (appointed by James Madison in 1811) Source: http://guncite.com/gc2ndcont.html
 
armedandsafe said:
Moreover, let each and every one of them swear before the feast of St. Hilary he will possess these arms and will bear allegiance to the lord king, Henry, namely the son of empress Maud, and that he will bear these arms in his service according to his order and in allegiance to the lord king and his realm..."
Click to expand...

Yeah, that proves that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. The history teacher's theory is totally discredited :)

Mike
 
Great! Glad it was of help. Keep us posted. It'll be interesting to hear your teacher's response.
 
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
–– Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...

Because the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or self defense against criminal individuals, but as the ultimate recourse of free men against a government that would strip us of our natural rights.

John
 
So here is what I think I will use. I doubt I will get much time so I went with what I see as the most important. I am going to pick up a copy of the federalist papers before next week so I will have it on hand. Thanks again for all the help.

"The importance of this article [the Second Amendment] will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers." [emphasis added]
-Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1811

http://www.constitution.org/js/js_344.htm

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.
-James Madison The Federalist Number 46


"...what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."
-Justice Scalia, D.C. v. Heller 2008

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
-Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal States, at 56 (New York, 1888).

Onebigelf, that quote is a good one but I am not sure if it is real. Anyone know for sure and have a source?
 
The Federalist Papers have several good references to the 2nd as well as the rest of the amendments. In reading through the volumes you learn to more and more respect the wisdom of the Founders. Also a thorough reading puts the lie to the 'living document' animal by-product.
 
Quote:

The Federalist Papers have several good references to the 2nd as well as the rest of the amendments. In reading through the volumes you learn to more and more respect the wisdom of the Founders. Also a thorough reading puts the lie to the 'living document' animal by-product.

~~~~~

Bingo!

Thank you and you took the words right out of my mouth.

Living document = a big, fat P.C. LIE!

Catherine
 
Last edited:
The Federalist Papers have several good references to the 2nd as well as the rest of the amendments.
Click to expand...
Really?

(The Federalist Papers were published before a BOR was drafted by Congress.)
 
Yes, I am intrigued about how your class discussions will turn out. Please let us know how it goes.
 
jakemccoy said:
Arguing against the authority of a Supreme Court opinion is effectively the same as arguing against the authority of the Constitution itself.
Click to expand...

As much as the Constitution has been ignored and bastardized, your statement doesn't mean much.

Woody
 
Ieyasu said:
The Federalist Papers were published before a BOR was drafted by Congress.
Click to expand...

I would also like to hear more about the 2nd Amendment in the Federalist Papers. It's been a long time since I looked at the original documents, but my memory is the BoR was very much a creation of the Anti-Federalists.

Which of the Federalist papers discuss the 2nd Amendment? That's not rhetorical, I'd like to know the numbers so I can go look it up.

Mike
 
IIRC the Federalist Papers do not discuss the second amendment, but there is discussion about firearms ownership.
A number of people believe the founders did not want a standing army. True, they didn't really like it, but they did adopt Constitutional provision for it, and IIRC in the FP there are remarks that a standing army would be tolerable since the citizenry would be armed to be able to resist a tyranny and a usurpation of said army against the people.
Another provision in the Constitution itself was to fund the army for two year periods.
 
IIRC the Federalist Papers do not discuss the second amendment, but there is discussion about firearms ownership.
Click to expand...

Which one of the Federalist Papers has the most extended discussion of the right to keep and bear arms?

Mike
 
I can tell you that Stephen Halbrook, in That Every Man Be Armed; the Evolution of a Constitutional Right, refers to various Papers.
Quotes from Federalist, # 28, 29, & 46.

On page 69 of this book:

In The Federalist, No.46 Madison, in contending that "the ultimate authority . . . resides in the people alone," predicted that encroachments by the federal government would provoke "plans of resistance" and an "appeal to a trial of force." To a regular army of the United States government "would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands."
Click to expand...

In Joyce Lee Malcolm's "To Keep and Bear Arms" Malcolm refers to No. 24 by Alexander Hamilton.

I have looked for my copy of The Federalist Papers but have been unable to locate it. The above, however, should give you a place to start.

IIRC, The Federalist Papers were written prior to the Constitution (a prior post refers to this) and so direct references to the second amendment, per se, will not be found. It is however, possible to discover the writer's philosophies regarding the right to keep arms and the purposes it served in a free society in these papers.
 
On page 69 of this book:

Quote:
In The Federalist, No.46 Madison, in contending that "the ultimate authority . . . resides in the people alone," predicted that encroachments by the federal government would provoke "plans of resistance" and an "appeal to a trial of force." To a regular army of the United States government "would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands."
Click to expand...

I just read #46 and the quote sort of misconstrues the meaning. The "..." includes most of the article. The basic argument is not about individual rights, but about the preservation of the State governments against the Federal government. The quote makes it appear the individuals would rise up against government tyranny - which is not what the article says. The militia would be used by the State government(s) to fight the Federal government:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.
Click to expand...

http://federali.st/46

In other words, #46 at least is not at all concerned with the use of weapons to prevent government tyranny over the individual - only the use of weapon by State government forces to prevent Federal government tyranny over a State government.

Mike
 
If I ever locate that darned infernal copy of The Federalist Papers ... I have looked every place I keep books...:banghead: and I can't :banghead: find :banghead: it!
Relying on references on other books is sorta lame because you don't always get the best idea of the entire context the founders intended.
I can't say off hand the Federalist papers had anything about individuals defyng federal tyranny. They developed a system where states had more power than they currently enjoy, and I believe they probably felt citizens would be more loyal to the state than to the government, and that states would be more willing to rally the people against a federal tyranny back then .....atleast, that's my theory for now.....

Have you ever put something back where it belongs, and come back, and had it apparantly walked off in the dark of night? Yeah it was maybe a couple of years ago ... but it's not like anyone else made off with it.:fire::fire:
 
Looking at #28, it also seems to be focused on the rights of State governments.

If I am reading the following paragraph correctly Hamilton is arguing that whatever the cause of a rebellion against a State government, it must be suppressed to for the sake of peace and prosperity. As I understand his perspective, there is not much concern for individual rights here. An insurrection is a contagion to be stamped out - whatever its cause. Are THR'ers comfortable with the notion that a State government is nearly absolute authority?

An insurrection, whatever may be its immediate cause, eventually endangers all government. Regard to the public peace, if not to the rights of the Union, would engage the citizens to whom the contagion had not communicated itself to oppose the insurgents; and if the general government should be found in practice conducive to the prosperity and felicity of the people, it were irrational to believe that they would be disinclined to its support.
Click to expand...

He apparently approves circumstances where the States governments put down insurrections within a State:

t appears that Massachusetts found it necessary to raise troops for repressing the disorders within that State; that Pennsylvania, from the mere apprehension of commotions among a part of her citizens, has thought proper to have recourse to the same measure.
Click to expand...

The writer explicitly accepts the right to fight tyranny is not so much an individual right as a State government right.

It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.
Click to expand...

http://federali.st/28

It sounds to me like Hamilton is really concerned with assuring the slaveholding States that the Federal government would not interfere with their right to put down slave rebellions. Is there another way to read #28?

Are there Federalist Papers that are more concerned with the individual right to keep and bear arms?

Mike
 
i think 29 talks about firearms and militia being a security against standing armies.
 
i think 29 talks about firearms and militia being a security against standing armies.
Click to expand...

As I read 29, it tries to explain why the Federal government arms and "disciplines" the militia, where the States supply officers and train the militia.

It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union 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.
Click to expand...

There is quite a bit of attention focused on the question of whether or not the militia could be used by the Federal government to oppress the states. I assume that the real concern here is that the militias of the northern states could be used to force abolition on the southern states.

By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government.
Click to expand...

The southern states had two concerns about Federal control of the militias:

  1. The Federal government could send a northern state's down to a southern state to force abolition.
  2. The Federal government could send a southern state's militia a northern state to prevent that state from using its militia to suppress a slave uprising.

A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain.
Click to expand...

http://federali.st/29

I don't see any RKBA arguments anywhere in #29.

Does anyone see any RKBA args in #29?

Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

hso
  • Locked
e-note from daughter's teacher on Constitution Week
Replies
10
Views
1K
Tom Servo
Tom Servo
S
  • Locked
Second Amendment drive!
Replies
6
Views
449
JLStorm
J
S
  • Locked
Putting the Second Amendment Second
Replies
4
Views
577
myrockfight
M
F
  • Locked
The Second Amendment: The Constitution In Miniature
Replies
6
Views
687
nvshooter
N
C
  • Locked
What are US students learning about the 2nd Amendment?
2 3
Replies
65
Views
3K
History Prof
H
Back
Top