second amendment history

[RPCVYemen]

try also reading the federalist #46

#46 seems to be largely about the the State militias fighting the Federal army. I don't see any argument for RKBA in #46. Do you?

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

try also reading the federalist #46

#46 seems to be largely about the the State militias fighting the Federal army. I don't see any argument for RKBA in #46. Do you?

Mike

 

[bradm]

I think many are missing the point - the militia referred to in the various Federalist Papers consists of the people, not the State. The State may provide the officers, but the people provide their own weapons. That would be very hard to do if their were no RKBA. The State does not provide the weapons or the basic training, only the officers and military discipline. The people need to already be comfortable with their own weapons to provide an effective fighting force for the State.

An obvious corollary is that the people need to be able to protect themselves from the State as well as from the Feds.

brad

 

[RPCVYemen]

The State may provide the officers, but the people provide their own weapons.

That is my understanding, but that's not what the FP says (at least #29) - let me add bold to the earlier quote:

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.

As I read the FP that have been cited, it's completely silent on the source of the weapons (other than the quote above) - the real concern is the relative power of the State and Federal government.

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

An obvious corollary is that the people need to be able to protect themselves from the State as well as from the Feds.

It may be obvious to you and me, but the FPs I have read have actually said nearly the opposite. Do you have an FP in mind that makes this argument?

Mike

 

[Ieyasu]

As I read the FP that have been cited, it's completely silent on the source of the weapons (other than the quote above)

From #28:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse 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.

Hamilton clearly states there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms and adds:

[T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!

Thus the militia is the ultimate check against a state or the national government. That is why the founders guaranteed the right to the people as opposed to only active militia members or a state's militia. But of course, via the militia clause, the Second Amendment acknowledges, as well, the right of a state to maintain a militia.

the real concern is the relative power of the State and Federal government.

True, but it is acknowledged that the original source of power (and arms) resides with the people.

The people's right to keep and bear arms as individuals is enhanced by a militia system that (in part) provides for the "security of a free state."

 

[blackbearaddict]

tell your history teacher to walk through a bad neighboorhood in new york unarmed and I think he'll understand

 

[Gungnir]

Sorry if this is flogging a dead horse (or resurrecting one)

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."
— James Madison, The Federalist Papers (No. 46).

Standing army - check
Enslaved Press - check
Disarmed Populace - jury is currently out, come back in 2012