origin of the "right to keep and bear arms"

[Blackhawk]

What does the 2nd Amendment say?

Since you don't seem to be able to grasp its literal meaning, it says "the government established by the Constitution is forbidden from messing around with the natural right to keep and bear arms."

SInce the Constitution is a living document, the 14A imposes that prohibition on all the states and other lower governments in the U.S. as well.

[Blackhawk]

Well said, David!

[agricola]

Tamara,

Is her article here wrong? I havent read her book, I do have an understanding of English history from 54 BC to about 1489 and there is little in that time frame that suggests the codification of an individual "right" to be armed, in fact service by means of arms was more done as an obligation than a right.

Does Malcolms book contradict this? Is the premise that she has in the article altered in the book? If so I wouldnt mind to see an extract.

[agricola]

Blackhawk,

Thats not its "literal" meaning, thats the meaning that you understand it to have. I agree that its meaning is quite clear - David is right when he says that the militia is the people and when he points out Hamilton's views on the effacacy of the armed citizen versus the soldier. Also, David, does the government have "rights"? The grammar is strange here.

The word "militia" does not go away in any of this and it is a key word - wholly individual RKBA is not provided for except as part of the militia.

[CWL]

Agricola,

If we can discuss your original 1600's England premis, I think that you are off by 4 centuries at least.

What about the rise of Yeomanry in England when 'mandated' so all able-bodied men were to keep & practice Yew bows (AKA longbows)?

I don't want to drive back to my Alma Mater for historical references, but know that I can find them.

Actually, this goes back into pre-history when the Celts & Picts fought the Romans (& each other), each carried his weapon of choice.

[Tamara]

For starters then: why (in an exact parallel to the English in 1689) was the addition of the phrase "for the common defense" overruled as part of the 2nd Amendment? Its inclusion was proposed, but voted down by a majority of senators.

Also, referring to my previous posts: how could one respond to the "hue and cry", or kill a thief who had come to "rob or murther" you unless one had weapons? If one had a duty to have weapons in one's home, how could one carry out that duty unless one also had the right to have weapons in one's home?




"The American Bill of Rights, like the English Bill of Rights, recognized the individual's right to have weapons for his own defence, rather than for collective defence." -Malcolm, p. 161

[DAVID NANCARROW]

Once again-the militia IS the people, and the government IS the people. By the way-anybody want to check the Articles of Confederation? It says the state and the Feds are supposed to make sure we have guns, ammo and camping equipment. I say we all go see our friendly supply sergeant (is there such a thing?)and take care of this immediately-immediately-harrumph-harrumph!

[Blackhawk]

wholly individual RKBA is not provided for except as part of the militia.

The NATURAL right to self defense using any available means is as obvious as the right of a cat to scratch, rake, bite and generally maim an attacking dog.

The Constitution does not ENABLE the government to do things. It's a restrictive document. It PROHIBITS the government from doing things. Not having one, it's not surprising that you may not understand that.

English law is whatever the courts and Parliament says it is at the time. The same cannot be said of the U.S. courts and Congress because of the absolute ceiling the Constitution puts on them.

Sometimes the Constitution has to be construed, which is a process exclusively reserved for the SCOTUS. And how does it do that? By going back in time to see what the words used meant at the time in light of the culture that existed then. What scares the anti RKBA and anti individual 2A rights in the U.S. is the prospect that the SCOTUS will finally take on a 2A case.

Almost a century elapsed after the Emancipation Proclamation and ratification of the 14A before the SCOTUS was willing to take on civil rights issues. Why? They feared the social upheavals that would take place. Same with the 2A. Rolling back 6 decades of laws in conflict with the 2A isn't going to be something done casually. Call it cowardice or whatever you will, but the desire to preserve the Union is strong among the SCOTUS. I think it's misguided, but they didn't, or haven't, asked me....

[agricola]

CWL,

Its not a "right" if you bear arms on behalf of (and at pain of legal sanction by) your Lord, which is what the feudal experience tells us.

Tamara,

Do you have a link to where I can look at this? Without seeing anything about this I cannot comment.

Except to say that from the perspective of the 1689 Bill of Rights, the framers of the US constitution saw that their "rights" (which they would have considered as equal to other Protestant subjects under the law as it existed then) had been violated against by the attempted confiscation of their arms - they had the right to bear arms for the militia defending their homes and the confiscation of their arms violated this right.

Therefore when they came to codify the "rights" of the citizenry in their new society the right had to be worded more strongly than that afforded them in 1689. JLM's article does suggest that initial drafts of the 1689 BOR were stronger and yet weakened in subsequent drafts. All of which suggests that this "right" dates from this time.

[Zander]

Your RKBA exists for the defence of the state, not defence from the state.

Absolutely incorrect.

The Constitution of the United States is an enumeration of citizens' Rights and limitations on government.

I've no idea why you chose to highlight the dependent clause of the 2nd Amendment, but in so doing you've attempted to reverse the meaning.

Our RKBA is enshrined in the Constitution because...

1. It is inherent;

2. Our Founding Fathers were prescient.

Most members of TFL have seen this point argued dozens if not hundreds of times. Please do take Tamara's advice and educate yourself...you are way out of your league.

[DAVID NANCARROW]

Agricola-you really should have a talk with your Lord if you think He put you down here to be a target for a scumbag, or a power hungry government official (see scumbag) regardless of what your government is telling you.

A slip of the tongue on the government having rights-the Constitution spells out what we, the people, will put up with from the government, or what we allow them to do without invoking the right to dismiss/fire/tar and feather/jail/impeach/remove form office/other appropriate punishment/ for their misdeeds.

We, as American's, not only have the inherent right of self defense, but the DUTY of self defense. Can't defend your neighbor if you can't defend yourself, let alone your country.

What is up with this mindset? If a country has only a "collective" right and no individual right to self defense, does that mean I can go in there and kill off the population one at a time and take over the country?
That makes absolutely no sense, and our constitution is full of common sense-can't say that for some of the morons we seem to elect who try to interpret the Constitution

I suspect you love your country as many of us love ours. It is a good thing to love and worry after your land. Checking the people who govern and what not. I hope your government never has to come to ours to buy rifles and pistols for the people as they did in WWII because they had stripped them from their subjects. Kind of stupid to do when you have a guy like Hitler in the neighborhood.

And you know just by reading the paper every day there's a new Hitler by another name taking over a country or trying to somewhere. We don't always know who our neighbor or friend is, orfor how long. You certainly don't have to be paranoid, but you should always be prepared!

[agricola]

All,

Whilst looking here:

http://www.constitution.org/dhbr.htm

I came across this proposed version of the 2A:

"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."

does this mean that the Select Committee considered that concientious objectors could not be compelled to bear arms, but that others could?

Zander,

the framers were either possessing of second sight, ie were not human, or they were men of their times and they said what they said having the history that they had - ie: the militia being superior to the professional soldier and the people being the militia - in short, those who were to defend their state.

[Doug444]

As is all most always the case, common sense seems to be severely lacking in this argument. Simply put, whenever Man (the creature) tries to define something good he always forgets something, and some other Man will take advantage of that mistake to further himself or his personal agenda.

"Huh?" you say? Let me try again.

From reading of the Federalist papers, and many other sources, I've come to conclude that the framers screwed up the 2A. What they truely meant to say was "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Simple, to the point, VERY hard to argue with. They were trying to reinforce that simple statement with an example that was very fresh in their minds, and thus added the preamble section. And there they screwed up, and left a potential opening for those who think like agricola.

Sucks when men try to put rules to everything!!!

(rant mode off.)

Doug444

[Scaramanga]

Perhaps the following will help acricola:

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

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. -- Alexander Hamilton

The definition of militia:

UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;

and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

In other words

the unorganized militia is everyone else.

[agricola]

doug,

IMHO thats your modern world-view talking. what the framers meant to say could well be that in light of having just seen men defending their homes and property against professional soldiers, that they wanted to maintain and strengthen that "normal" way of things (normal since almost every other nation in the world had a militia) in opposition to either an external enemy, an internal one (an insurrection for example) or, arguably, a tyranny established and maintained by a standing army (perhaps in conjunction with some section of the civil power).

by giving the people in terms of the militia arms and training they hoped to guarantee that "the people armed" could maintain the status quo from potential enemies. they do not say "and the people may keep what arms they wish" because they did not want to say it - what they wanted, based on the evidence, if for the people to represent the backbone of the countries defence - whether this is a right or a requirement is a matter of viewpoint. note that, unlike the gun control argument posed in the US, this does not mean that the only people to be armed are police and national guard, but rather a situation along the lines of Switzerland in which every household is armed and trained by the state for the defence of the commonwealth. this would include self defence, but in terms of the community (like the hue and cry) rather than the individual

[mister rogers]

"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."

Yes, this was proposed, but was rejected amongst other reasons because some were afraid that the clause could be misconstrued by the unscrupulous to prohibit Quakers or other religious people from keeping and bearing arms. Now who would they be afraid might misconstrue the meaning but the government.

As has been referenced, a consensus of liberal and conservative scholars have all concluded that the 2nd amendment protects the pre-existing right for individuals to keep and bear arms.

Dicta from numerous supreme court decisions have referenced the 2nd amendment as a pre-existing individual right that is not given or granted by the government or the constitution.

The Declaration of Independence - (the foundational document of our nation) - makes it clear that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that governments are established amongst men to secure the exercise of these rights.

The Bill of Rights - (the first 10 amendments) were not added as an afterthought, they were added as a condition of ratification of the Constitution. They were created as indicated in the preamble to the Bill of Rights as a limitation on government and a guarantee of individual liberties. As amendment 10 makes it clear these are not an exhaustive list.

The second amendment was placed second on the final list, immediately after freedom of speech, of worship, of assembly.

If it were worded - A well educated electorate being necessary
to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed. Then I guess only members to the electorate, (as defined by the state), may keep or read books, and only those books that are determined by the state to have some relation to the security of a free state. Oops if we read it that way then the whole thing has no real meaning.

Its the same with the second amendment - the constitution already makes provision for the organization of the army and the militia, so to read the second amendment as a guarantee of government power to establish and organize a militia is idiotic. It also completely nullifies the meaning of; (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.)

There doesn't need to be any conflict at all between the two phrases of course - it is just a false choice pushed by those who don't want people to have the ability to keep and bear arms.

Lastly, the argument is made that rights have come into existence, and that this is evidence that they are created by men. Of course we don't use that argument when we talk about the theory of relativity or gravity. Well, before Isaac Newton men didn't talk about the laws of gravity, therefore gravity didn't exist. Nor do we talk about God in those terms, well before Adam, God didn't exist.

Of course some people see this as arrogance, different societies have different definitions of rights. Yes, they do, some societies felt it was okay to enslave people, to freely kill someone who was not a citizen of their country, or to murder those who held different religious beliefs than themselves. I humbly suggest that those aren't just different, they are wrong. They were wrong then, they are wrong now, and they will be wrong in the future.

The analogy is apt when it comes to religious faith - the other night I watched a TV show were a prominent liberal berated a pastor as intolerant and arrogant because the pastor stated that only those who believe in Christ will go to heaven. The pastors’ simple and true point was that, he believed in Christ as his lord and savior and that Christ had said that the only way to salvation and heaven was through him. Now one can disagree with the pastor, but he was hardly being arrogant or intolerant, he was merely stating the foundation of his faith. If he were to believe otherwise he would be holding God as he understood him in contempt.

In America our nation is built on faith, faith that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. You may disagree but those are the facts.

[Tamara]

Again:

Why was inclusion of the words "for the common defence" in the amendment specifically voted down? (Both in the English and American Bills of Rights)

Why do so many state constitutions written at the time specifically include the right to defend one's self and property by force of arms? Why do some even specifically include the Right to Revolt?

Why does it say "necessary for the security of a free State" and not "necessary for the security of the State"? Why does it say "...Armes for their defence..." and not "...Armes for the common defence..."?

Why did Malcolm state her conclusion specifically (after years of research and a degree in the history of the time period in discussion) as "The American Bill of Rights, like the English Bill of Rights, recognized the individual's right to have weapons for his own defence, rather than for collective defence." -Malcolm, p. 161?

Tick-tock, tick-tock...

[agricola]

mister rogers,

gravity is an accepted and provable scientific phenomenon. without wishing to be dragged into the issue of religion, God and the Creation is an abstract, as "rights" are, and there is no answer to it beyond that which each person holds dear. the rights of man developed independently (although possibly inspired by) of God and will develop throughout the lifespan of human civilization - future generations may consider us slaves for not being allowed to do anything that they take for granted.

[agricola]

tamara,

in the case of the US BOR, why even mention the militia at all? why not restrict it to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be restricted".......with regards to state constitutions, as i said before, i cannot talk about them until i read them.
Besides, as I said above, the BOR of 1689 specifically reserves the right for Parliament to dictate (via the law) what weapons a subject may carry which is the transferrence of the feudal-age obligation of the subjects to be armed for defence from the King to Parliament. In 1689, they didnt say "the common defence" because it was taken as understood that thats what was meant (given the history of the standing, obligated militia which was at least 600 years old at the time) and the people they excluded from the "right" are precisely those who they brought in this [b]new[/i] measure to deal with - ie: "papists".

besides, the BOR of 1689 says:

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

the key word being "their" - when taken with the complaint against James II that:

By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law

it seems clear that this is a method whereby protestants can be armed for their defence against Catholics - ie the permanent presence of a Protestant militia as against the raising of Catholic levies by the Stuarts.

[Blackhawk]

gravity is an accepted and provable scientific phenomenon. without wishing to be dragged into the issue of religion, God and the Creation is an abstract, as "rights" are, and there is no answer to it beyond that which each person holds dear. the rights of man developed independently (although possibly inspired by) of God and will develop throughout the lifespan of human civilization - future generations may consider us slaves for not being allowed to do anything that they take for granted.

You don't like gravity as an example? How about death? Just about everybody is of the opinion that all will die despite tremendous efforts to forestall or prevent it, yet it cannot be scientifically proven that all will die since the fact that everybody else has so far isn't acceptable to prove future events.

Your arguments are less and less intriguing, and that may be because it's near or past your bedtime. Better luck tomorrow....

[agricola]

blackhawk,

what an utterly pointless post. please prove that you have a god-given right to bear arms....... but you can't - its an abstract

btw everyone will die.

[Blackhawk]

btw everyone will die.

Prove it.

[Tamara]

I asked four questions; you took a grazing shot at one of them (something about my interpretation being wrong and yours being right). In the interest of making your answering the four questions easier, you may use the blanks provided below:

Why was inclusion of the words "for the common defence" in the amendment specifically voted down? (Both in the English and American Bills of Rights)

#1)_________________

Why do so many state constitutions written at the time specifically include the right to defend one's self and property by force of arms? Why do some even specifically include the Right to Revolt?

#2)_________________

Why does it say "necessary for the security of a free State" and not "necessary for the security of the State"? Why does it say "...Armes for their defence..." and not "...Armes for the common defence..."?

#3)_________________

Why did Malcolm state her conclusion specifically (after years of research and a degree in the history of the time period in discussion) as "The American Bill of Rights, like the English Bill of Rights, recognized the individual's right to have weapons for his own defence, rather than for collective defence." -Malcolm, p. 161?

#4)_________________


RSVP.

PS: According to Malcolm, the words "for the common defense" were bandied about, yet specifically excluded from the English Bill of Rights also! Quelle dommage!

[Zander]

...or they were men of their times and they said what they said having the history that they had

They were entirely human...men of intelligence, education, logic skills, foresight and the foibles that proved their humanity. They posited accurately that an overweaning government posed the greatest of threats to freedom and liberty. They were humans...and, by God, they were exactly right.

A man such as yourself, claiming to be a scrupulous historian, should be able to glean from this nation's birth that tyrants...Redcoats or otherwise...were to be prevented from disarming the common man.

It really is that simple...and history, especially that of the last century, has proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Your government shows a particularly pernicious trend. So does ours...but we insist on keeping our inherent Right to remedy it.

You and your fellow subjects, in contrast, seem detemined to deepen your submission in contradiction of all that is logical.

We can't do anything about your peril...that's up to you.

Best of luck...you're going to need it.

[MeekAndMild]

Aggie, you're right about one thing. Ever since Good King Hal got all the Church property in his divorce settlement the good Anglicans have tried to write Catholics out of existance.

Here is a brief Catholic blurb about self defence http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13691a.htm

Canon Law precedes British constitutional attempts by many hundreds of years and provides the needed background for a study of natural law.