Origins of the 'Right to Bear Arms'

Status
Not open for further replies.
1

1sttruck

Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Messages
4,375
Location
Camas, WA
See below for a chronological listing of proposed amendments on the right to bear arms which eventually made up the bill of rights. It's interesting that the first specifically stated a right to bear arms outside of the context of the miltia, but that right didn't appear to be mentioned where it was mentioned, and it was not even mentioned at all in some. Almost all of the discussions were in the context of the militia, which is why the wording ended up the way that it did.

The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania To Their Constituents
18 December 1787
7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence 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.



Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Massachusetts
February 6, 1788.
[no mention of right to bear arms]



A FRAGMENT OF FACTS, DISCLOSING THE CONDUCT OF THE MARYLAND CONVENTION, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION.
April 21, 1788.
[no mention of right to bear arms]


Ratification of the Constitution by the State of South Carolina
May 23, 1788.
[no mention of right to bear arms]


George Mason's Master Draft of the Bill of Rights Amendments to the New Constitution of Government
June 9, 1788.
17. That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the

Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that

Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the

Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be

under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.


Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire
June 21, 1788.
Twelfth, Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.



Amendments Proposed by the Virginia Convention
June 27, 1788
Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of

the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That

standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as

the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be

under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.


Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York:
July 26, 1788
That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of

the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;


Ratification of the Constitution by the State of North Carolina
November 21, 1789.
17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the

body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state. That

standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as

the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should

be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.


Amendments Offered in Congress by James Madison
June 8, 1789
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated

militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms

shall be compelled to render military service in person.


Amendments Reported by the Select Committee
July 28, 1789
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State,

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous

shall be compelled to bear arms."


Amendments Passed by the House of Representatives
August 24, 1789
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the

right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of

bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.


Amendments Passed by the Senate
September 9, 1789
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep

and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Amendments Agreed to After Conference and Proposed by Congress to the States
September 25, 1789
Article the fourth . . . A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the

right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Twelve amendments were proposed, and ten adopted, effective December 15, 1791. Those ten became known as

the Bill of Rights, and their ratification is celebrated as Bill of Rights Day.
 
Originally Posted By: alreadygone
Totally ignoring the "Federalist Papers"?

Bob


So what do they say on this issue? I read them over 10 years ago and mostly what I remember was all the evils the senate elected by the state legislatures would protect us from all sorts of evils. So how long was it from the direct election of senators to the income tax?
 
"What is the point that you wish to make with your original post?"

There have been a number of statements about gun laws in the US, guns being protected by the Constitution, etc., so it seemed like a good exercise to see how the 2nd amendment developed during the convention.
 
The Bill of Rights is to AFFIRM the inalienable rights of the people, it does not GRANT them. There was talk of not adding the Bill of Rights due to the fear that it might be construed in later times to mean that those are the only rights of the people. Sadly, they were less than correct as even these enumerated rights have fallen by the way side.

The Constitution puts very limited power in the hands of the Federal government and that was the intent of the Founders. This can be seen very clearly in the 10th Amendment:
Quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This makes nearly everything the current government does illegal. Of course all of these things (like gun control) have happened because appointed judges have decided that these things no longer apply and that other "positive rights" (things government should do for you) have magically appeared.

This pseudo and grey area thinking is what has given us the engorged Federal Government that we have today.

From the Declaration of Independence:
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly 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, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

NO reasonable person could conclude that the Founders wanted the government to have the power to prevent people from arming themselves.
Indeed, the militia was the PEOPLE and those people being armed are the reason the country was able to be founded in the first place.
The 2nd Amendment says the right of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed. It does not say the right of the states or militia to bear arms, it says the people.
And it doesn't say the right to bear muskets or smooth bores, it says ARMS. They understood that technology would advance and the language was chosen appropriately.

Combined with the 10th Amendment granting unenumerated rights to the people, there can be no question...except among those that want to ignore the Constitution.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
The Bill of Rights is to AFFIRM the inalienable rights of the people, it does not GRANT them. There was talk of not adding the Bill of Rights due to the fear that it might be construed in later times to mean that those are the only rights of the people. Sadly, they were less than correct as even these enumerated rights have fallen by the way side.

The Constitution puts very limited power in the hands of the Federal government and that was the intent of the Founders. This can be seen very clearly in the 10th Amendment:
Quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This makes nearly everything the current government does illegal. Of course all of these things (like gun control) have happened because appointed judges have decided that these things no longer apply and that other "positive rights" (things government should do for you) have magically appeared.

This pseudo and grey area thinking is what has given us the engorged Federal Government that we have today.

From the Declaration of Independence:
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly 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, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

NO reasonable person could conclude that the Founders wanted the government to have the power to prevent people from arming themselves.
Indeed, the militia was the PEOPLE and those people being armed are the reason the country was able to be founded in the first place.
The 2nd Amendment says the right of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed. It does not say the right of the states or militia to bear arms, it says the people.
And it doesn't say the right to bear muskets or smooth bores, it says ARMS. They understood that technology would advance and the language was chosen appropriately.

Combined with the 10th Amendment granting unenumerated rights to the people, there can be no question...except among those that want to ignore the Constitution.


+100,000,000,000
 
"This makes nearly everything the current government does illegal."

No, this makes it clear that you have no understanding of the laws in the United States and no apparent apprciation for the rule of law, as even conservative Supreme Court judges let stand existing laws while ruling against the DC handgun ban. As a remedy for the DC ban they suggested that DC should register the handgun and provide a license so that they gentleman can carry it in his house.

This is one reason why we have people willingly breaking firearms laws, and one reason why firearms end up being misused.
 
Quote:
this makes it clear that you have no understanding of the laws in the United States

crackmeup2.gif

Then please, with your superior understanding of the laws of the US, provide your version as to what the Founder's meant and wanted when they included the 10th Amendment in the Constitution.

Quote:
as even conservative Supreme Court judges let stand existing laws while ruling against the DC handgun ban. As a remedy for the DC ban they suggested that DC should register the handgun and provide a license so that they gentleman can carry it in his house.

Scalia had to tone down the final language in order to get 5 votes. He absolutely TEARS APART his opponents on the court in several of the side notes in the decision. Makes their arguments look child like. He skillfully embedded plenty of language in the decision to allow for further challenges of existing legislation.

It's truly sad that we are 1 vote of an appointed judge away from loosing our enumerated 2nd Amendment rights. This really shows how far our Government has slid down the slippery slope of removing our inaliable rights.

Do you agree that the Supreme Court has the right to cite and reference foreign law in deciding the constitutionality of laws passed in this country?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-07-foreign-usat_x.htm
There is no such allowance in the US Constitution.
 
I actually read the DC v. Heller text and found it quite educational. Scalia knows what he's talking about and laid it out well for the dissenting judges.

I'm [censored] proud to be a gun owner and I cherish that (currently) this country recognizes it as a birth right. But, gun politics give me migraines and heartburn.

Especially - The fact that some people think only the government and police should have guns drives me batshit insane. Why not just drop your pants and hold up a neon OPEN sign? I must have missed the meeting where the government and politicians announced their honesty and good faith towards citizens.
 
Quote:
I must have missed the meeting where the government and politicians announced their honesty and good faith towards citizens.

Indeed. Many people believe that because a politician won a popularity contest they instantly become altruistic and a philanthropist. This in spite of centuries of proof otherwise.
 
"Then please, with your superior understanding of the laws of the US, provide your version as to what the Founder's meant and wanted when they included the 10th Amendment in the Constitution."

I provided the initial proposals and development of the 2nd amendment, which says more about what the founder's meant about the 2nd amendment than just about anything. They did not choose include statements about the right to bear arms outside of the context of the militia.
 
1sttruck,

It seems to me that you have a decidedly anti-gun position. Am I correct? If you are in fact anti-gun, why not simply state it and move on? If not, tell me where I have misunderstood you.

BTW, I didn't think we were supposed to talk politics on this forum.
21.gif
 
Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
As a remedy for the DC ban they suggested that DC should register the handgun and provide a license so that they gentleman can carry it in his house.


And what has registrations and PITA to get licenses done to curb gun crimes? Nothing. Not a thing. There will always be gun crime in DC no matter what you do. The only thing the "laws" do is limit law abiding citizens.

Gun crime is a societal problem. Not a hardware problem. Look at how well that "war on drugs" has been working out...

Make it illegal for me to protect myself and family then guess what. You will just have to label me a "criminal". Heck... since im already a "criminal" I might even start to care alot less about some other laws.
 
Last edited:
"It seems to me that you have a decidedly anti-gun position. Am I correct? If you are in fact anti-gun, why not simply state it and move on? If not, tell me where I have misunderstood you."

I've been a gun owner for 40 years now. I let my NRA membership drop around a bit before Bush Sr did, where it was funny to see that the NRA in all of it's wisdom withdrew support for Bush. Merely because I'm a gun owner doesn't mean that I need to ignore gun laws, threaten to ignore gun laws, not understand the relationship between firearms and homicides in this country and others, not understand how gun laws came into being, etc.

Over two decades ago the rod and gin club that I belonged to in SoCal had to purge a number of members, restrict camo and offensive slogans on clothing, and tighten membership requirements because of all of the right wing yahoos that made it into the club. This was a nice range, families turned out, Marines practiced at our shoots as did some local law enforcement, but we started seeing 'white man unite' literature turning up, idiots shooting target frames with their 9mm wannabe guns, and some really crude, foul mouthed folk on the range. And so it's been everywhere else.
 
Thanks for the clarification. I guess it just seemed strange to me when you posted all the information about how our 2nd amendment came to be. I felt that you were going out of your way to imply that the 2nd amendment did not explicitly protect the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

I can relate to the "yahoos" you describe. We have our fair share of them here in the South. Trips to the outdoor shooting ranges around here can definitely be interesting to say the least.
 
Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
"Then please, with your superior understanding of the laws of the US, provide your version as to what the Founder's meant and wanted when they included the 10th Amendment in the Constitution."

I provided the initial proposals and development of the 2nd amendment, which says more about what the founder's meant about the 2nd amendment than just about anything. They did not choose include statements about the right to bear arms outside of the context of the militia.


As to the context of the Militia:
http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/ff_militia.htm
The Militia IS the people. This is written about by the Founders over and over. Again, the 2nd Amendment does NOT say the right of the Militia or states to bear arms, it DOES say the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

Indeed, the start of the Revolutionary war was because the British set out to remove arms from the people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord

Do you really believe people that had just won a hard fought war for individual liberty would include restrictions on firearm ownership in a Bill of Rights??
Pure folly.
 
The proposal below was one of the first submitted, it specifically states having a right to bear arms for something other than in the context of the miltia. There were a few proposals first stating 'That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms', including one by Madison. But none of these were used, instead we see a well regulated militia being mentioned first, which is different than a number of individuals living in the same area.

The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania To Their Constituents
18 December 1787
7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence 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.


Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York:
July 26, 1788
That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

dnewton3
  • Locked
NY State Supreme Court decision regarding "red flag" gun laws
Replies
1
Views
938
dnewton3
B
Audi/VW pinch bolts for upper control arm.
Replies
18
Views
551
Audiman
I
Need torque spec for the four front crossmember bolts of a 2012 Yukon
Replies
5
Views
284
i6pwr
redhat
Lubriplate assembly question
Replies
3
Views
625
redhat
Twisted1
BCA rear wheel bearing vs bearing/hub combo: Are they the same?
Replies
3
Views
670
nwjones18
Back
Top