second amendment history

Status
Not open for further replies.

RancidSumo

Member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
1,168
Location
Green River, WY
I got into an argument with my history teacher today about the original purpose of the second amendment. He claims that it was originally intended for protection against Britain and that it is now oboslete. I am looking for quotes from the framers and other information to use next week when we start debating it next week. Any information is apreciated. Please provide links.
 
Last edited:
We'd already defeated England when the 2A was debated and ratified.

There are a few books that give a good background on the second amendment

To Keep and Bear Arms; The Origin of an Anglo-American Right, by Joyce Lee Malcolm Copyright 1994 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College.
That Every Man Be Armed; The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, by Stephen P. Halbrook, Copyright 1984 by the University of New Mexico Press.
And for a pretty chunky expose of Supreme Court cases that have touched upon the second amendment;
Supreme Court Gun Cases; Two Centuries of Gun Rights Revealed, by Stephen Halbrook, David B. Kopel and Alan Korwin, Copyright 2004 by Alan Korwin.
I'd start out with the first two books.

You might ask your professor, if he thinks the second amendment is "obsolete," why the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights aren't equally obsolete, since they were debated and ratified at the same point in history.
 
Some Quotes

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."
–– George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms 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

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
–– Thomas Jefferson

"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

"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, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, and member of the first Continental Congress, which passed the Bill of Rights
 
All of the previous responses are spot on. A quick retort to his comment is that the 2nd ammendment was intended to balance the power of a standing army, which was the framers greatest concern. If the people are armed, a tyrant leader will find it difficult to turn the army against the people.

Of course, Janet Reno had no difficulty doing just that in Wako, but that's another story.
 
Oh, just hand him the Heller ruling, and tell him to sit down.
+1
Read up on Heller, that's all the info you need, the history you need is included in it.

For a quick reply, just point out that there was hardly any need for the US to add an amendment to guarantee it's own right to defend itself against Britain.
With the purpose he claims it had, the 2nd would have been redundant even before it was written. But he obviously don't know any of the history of the 2nd. So read Heller.
 
You have to be careful about using quotes that aren't referenced. There's lots of them that simply don't exist in the known writings of the supposed authors. Sometimes it's easy to tell because the syntax doesn't fit. The following is a prime example (unless someone can find an original source document.)

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
–– Thomas Jefferson

There's no question as to the true meaning of the 2nd amendment, but it doesn't help the cause to use spurious quotes. No offense.
 
I am no history expert, but I think the "Liberty Teeth" quote attributed to George Washington is suspect. Unless someone can make an objective rebuttal, I would suggest that it isn't the best quote to use.

The "Liberty Teeth" Speech by "George Washington"
--
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself.
They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under
independence. The church, the plow, the prarie wagon, and
citizen's firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the
Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and
tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness,
the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner
of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 99/100 percent of
them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands.
The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains
evil interference; they deserve a place with all that's good.
When firearms, go all goes; we need them every hour."
--falsely attributed to George Washington, address to the
second session of the first U.S. Congress

This quotation, sometimes called the "liberty teeth" quote,
appears nowhere in Washington's papers or speeches, and contains
several historical anachronisms: the reference to "prarie wagon"
in an America which had yet to even begin settling the Great Plains
(which were owned by France at the time), the reference to "the
Pilgrims" which implies a modern historical perspective, and
particularly the attempt by "Washington" to defend the utility
of firearms (by_use_of_statistics!) to an audience which would
have used firearms in their daily lives to obtain food, defend
against hostile Indians, and which had only recently won a war
for independence. The "99 99/100 percent" is also an odd phrase
for 18th century America, which tended not to use fractional
percentages. It's clear that "Washington" is addressing "gun
control" arguments which wouldn't exist for another couple
of centuries, not to mention doing so in a style that is
uncharacteristic of the period, and uncharacteristic of
Washington's addresses to Congress, both of which exhibited a
high degree of formality. This is a false quote, but bits and
pieces of it still continue to crop up from time to time.
Most recently, this quote has been seen circulated on flyers
at gun shows attributed to Neil Knox's Firearms Coalition,
but Knox isn't the original source of this "speech," and even
national publications, such as_Playboy_magazine, have been
snared by it. ("Playboy_published the "quote" in December 1995
as part of an article entitled "Once and for All: What the
Founding Fathers Said About Guns". After consulting with an
assistant editor of the George Washington Papers at the University
of Virginia,"Playboy_published a lengthy correction in March 1996.)
http://stason.org/TULARC/society/pr...-Pious-Frauds-Or-If-It-Sounds-Too-Good-T.html
 
The Constitution is a compromise between the forces of the Federalist and the anti-Federalists. Here is a proposal by some delegates; although ultimately rejected, it gives you an insight at perhaps how the second amendment came into being.

The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents (December 18,1787)

7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.
This is taken directly from the anti-Federalist Papers. Interesting to note that the sixth proposal right before this one reads like this:

6. That the people have a right to the freedom of speech, of writing and publishing their sentiments, therefore, the freedom of the press shall not be restrained by any law of the United States.

Why they changed it around to the ambiguous wording that we have now is beyond me.
Don't say this your teacher, but he is intellectually lazy. You are getting shortchanged as a student.
 
BikerNut said:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."
–– George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress.

The other quotes are genuine. This "Washington" one is bogus.
 
This sort of stuff is what happens when people teaching history have studied under someone who has an agenda which reinforces their own agenda. Don't worry about the truth or facts, just spew your agenda. The Heller Decision should answer any and all questions from the nincompoop teacher... assuming he/she can read and understand plain English. :cuss:
 
Oh, just hand him the Heller ruling
+1 Geek, Erik, and Jake.

Heller is an historically based opinion. And with it the SCOTUS has provided us with the authoritative interpretation of the 2nd Amendment's purpose.

Your teacher may disagree--if so, let him know that he might as well argue that separate IS equal, or abortion is NOT a woman's right. That should make his eyes bug out. :what:

:)
 
( I pasted this from an old e-mail)


Still believe the founding fathers intended "the militia" to bear arms, but not "the people ?

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... 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." — Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." — Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353 A little rebellion now and then is a good thing... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed... If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty... and what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned, from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.
-Thomas Jefferson, in response to Shays' Rebellion, on November 13, 1787

If you don't like Jefferson, there's always Madison:

"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans
possess over the people of almost every other nation."

"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).

Well, there's always Patrick Henry:

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788

Or Samuel Adams

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions."
— Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788


"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."George Mason

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their 'constitutional' right of amending it or their 'revolutionary' right to dismember or overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."
— Heinrich Himmler
 
I look at it from the position of a gun toting American who happens to be a college professor. The liberal dogma has been spouted for so long, it is becoming truth.

Stand up to your professor in the best way you can, even though he can ruin your GPA. I'm not saying take and F for the home team, just resist the Lefty and then move on.

You can't win in a confrontation in HIS classroom. However, you can be firm and correct and have facts on your side - other students will sense your power.
 
there is also the federalist papers #29 from hamilton stating in part of it
This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

stating that it is necessary as a balance against a standing army.
 
Although some amicus briefs are excellent, the amicus briefs are not legal authority.

Arguing against the authority of a Supreme Court opinion is effectively the same as arguing against the authority of the Constitution itself.
 
Thanks for all the replies but I think I need to be more specific on what he is saying. He is not arguing against an individual right, he is saying that it is obsolete since it was ment for individuals to protect themselves against the British. I know it doesn't make since but I have sort of a reputation for being the gun nut and most of my classmates don't agree with me because what I am saying doesn't coincide with that of the teacher's. I am not worried about my grade since it really isn't a class that allows for the teacher's opinion to get into grades. (keep in mind this is a high school class)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top