origin of the "right to keep and bear arms"

[Roybean]

Larry Pratt has a good article on "What the Bible says about gun control"

Don't have the website but search for Gun Owners of America or for Larry Pratt on the Teoma.com search engine.

[Tamara]

So we come back to this question that I always run into in the United States, people parsing that sentence, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state comma the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

First it should be said that the introductory clause is not necessary, as grammarians will tell you. You could say, "The moon being made of green cheese comma the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It would still be fine. You still wouldn't be able to infringe on the right of people to keep and bear arms even though we would've been a little bit wrong about the moon. But in fact it turns out to be more than that problem. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." The founders of the United States were not simple men. They did not put unnecessary words. What's the word free doing there?

Germany didn't need a militia; it had a standing army that goose-stepped all across Europe. Well, it sort of happens. But a militia is necessary for the security of a free state. If you want to remain free you can't allow the central power to have a standing army which can overpower you and therefore threaten you and frighten you out of trying to claim your rights. That's what the militia was all about. If you read the debates from 1787 when the federalists are trying to get the Constitution ratified, passed and enacted, they are screaming up and down, "Don't worry!" Daniel Webster, a prominent federalist said, "Don't worry! There is no way that this central government we're creating will ever enforce unjust laws by the sword because if they ever tried, a militia of at least a million in strength will rise up and defeat any army that the central government could put in the field on any pretext." It was the notion that the vast number of armed citizens would be able to protect their own liberties. That's why the United States was built to depend on a militia.

...from Vin Suprynowicz's speech, "That Every Man Be Armed".

[agricola]

tamara,

your four questions i have answered as best as i can with the evidence available to me; i am looking at state constitutions but i cannot answer them up to this point beyond the above posted replies.

that said you probably wont read it again and i will get another "tick tock" based reply.

your post here is contradictory.....first the author says:

First it should be said that the introductory clause is not necessary, as grammarians will tell you. You could say, "The moon being made of green cheese comma the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It would still be fine

then the author says:

The founders of the United States were not simple men. They did not put unnecessary words. What's the word free doing there?

which does the author mean? that the first part is unimportant, yet the word "free" is critical? the whole sentence must be taken in context; that after the experiences of the English Civil War, Glorious Revolution and the Rebellion, the framers were very much anti- standing army and as a counterweight required the people to bear arms to maintain their status quo - ie: that the "natural right" to keep and bear arms is bogus and that this is a historical creation to a given set of circumstances that grew from the "militia" feudal concept.

[Tamara]

He addresses that with

You still wouldn't be able to infringe on the right of people to keep and bear arms even though we would've been a little bit wrong about the moon. But in fact it turns out to be more than that problem. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." The founders of the United States were not simple men. They did not put unnecessary words. What's the word free doing there?

and the entire following paragraph.

As to my "natural right to bear arms", that comes with an opposable thumb and a melon-sized brain; watch me walk outside and pick up a tree branch, et voila!, I am bearing an arm, with no one's permission. No need to discuss metaphysics or spirits in the sky....

[Tamara]

...the "natural right to bear arms", tell me where, from the grain flails and mill handles of Okinawan peasants to the basement gunsmithies of Belfast and Manchester, from the bedspring "shanks" in maximum-security penitentaries to the free-fire zones of "gun-free" Washington DC, that people have been deprived of arms if they really want them?

[agricola]

tamara,

you also have a "natural right" to bash a neighbour over the head with that rock and kill him, or do whatever you want - since in our "natural" state there are no laws or methods of behaviour.

the author doesnt address the point; he quite implicitly says that the first part of 2A doesnt matter, its irrelevant to the second part; then insists that one word in the second part is vital because the framers wrote it and must have meant something by it - just as they must have meant something by the inclusion of the qualifying statement at the start of 2A. That statement is there for a reason, yet it seems consistently to be dismissed.

[SW9M]

There exist a law, not written down anywhere, but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law, which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves in morally right. When weapons reduce them to silence, the laws no longer expect one to await their pronouncements. For people who decide to wait for these will have to wait for justice, too-and meanwhile they must suffer injustice first. Indeed, even the wisdom of the law itself, by a sort of tacit implication, permits self-defense, because it does not actually forbid men to kill; what is does, instead, is to forbid the bearing of a weapon with the intention to kill. When, therefore, an inquiry passes beyond the mere question of the weapon and starts to consider the motive, a man who has used arms in self-defense is not regarded as having carried them with a homicidal aim. --Marcos Tullius Cicero

and

Civilized people are taught by logic, barbarians by necessity, communities by tradition; and the lesson is inculcated even in wild beasts by nature itself. They learn that they have to defend their own bodies and persons and lives from violence of any and every kind by all the means within their power. --Marcos Tullius Cicero

Formerly [under the reign of Servius Tullius (the sixth Roman king, 578-535 BC)] the right to bear arms bad belonged solely to the patricians. Now plebeians were given a place in the army, which was to be reclassified according to every man's property, i.e., his ability to provide himself a more or less complete equipment for the field…. [All the citizens] capable of bearing arms were required to provide [their own swords, spears and other armor.]-History of Rome (Roman historian Livy)

This was I think the first formal government that issued a law that recognized, not granted, the individual right to self-defense.

The laws allow arms to be taken against an armed foe.-Roman poet Ovid.

If you want to find the answer to your question, read the book

The Second Amendment Primer-- by Les Adams.

Published by
Palladium Press
Post Office Box 530065
Birmingham, Alabama 35253

I think you can buy it through the NRA.

These quotes have been lifted out of this book.

[KSFreeman]

agricola, old chap, black letter law that a statement of purpose cannot define a right. For example, the statement of purpose in the First Amendment does not define the First Amendment.

The First Amendment recognizes the right "to petition the Government" for the stated purpose of "a redress of grievances." Despite this express purpose, the Supreme Court has held that the right to petition includes the right to petition for economic as well as political reasons. See, e.g., Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 531-2 (1945); see also NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958). As well, the Second Amendment's statement of purpose "[a] well Regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State" does not limit the right.

The first part of the Second Amendment does not impact the individual right. It does not qualify it in any way. The Supreme Court has long held that 'the people" means individuals. Us lowly peasants mucking about in the fields as you Ingerish nobility ride by with your coconut halves.

BTW, Natural Law is not anarchy. It contains the rights given to us by God. Self-defense is one of those which grows from Life, Liberty and Property (sound familiar? BoR and the DoI).

[Bud Helms]

I have only just now read every post in this thread.

Agricola: "... in our "natural" state there are no laws or methods of behaviour."

There is a basis for some fundamental misunderstanding. I do not believe it is true.

Agricola, your response to Tamara's four questions is very disappointing. You have shown yourself to be a tolerant and learned debator. I have never seen a detractor or disbeliever of our "open" interpretation of the Second Amendment be swayed by open debate. It seems it is almost a point of honor (or is it that their mind's made?) to not go over to the other side.

The arguments are before you and seem to be ample ... if you really are not predispositioned.

[KSFreeman]

Too right, I didn't answer your inquiry, agricola, old man. You asked why James Madison put the first clause in.

He could have left the huge statements of purpose like George Mason's RKBA in Old Virginny. Or he could have just left it out entirely as many state constitutions did, e.g. Rhode Island or Indiana.

However, Madison was imparting the value of the armed citizenry in combatting foreign or domestic threats to liberty that he learned from the Bible, the Greeks, the Romans, the Italian Republicans, the Whigs, and even, shudder, the English.

The only way to remain free is to ensure that the people themselves can fight for it. Thus, a well-trained body of the people will ensure freedom. To ensure this well-trained body of the people, the right to arms shall (mandatory language) not be interfered with.

[agricola]

sensop,

i have repeatedly posted that i cannot respond to tamara's posts without reading the state constitutions pertaining to RKBA. i agree that RKBA is enshrined in the BoR - but IMHO its not a "natural right" given by god, rather that it evolved as the result of political and social developments in seventeenth and eigtheenth century England which itself was a development of a pre-existing format (the "militia" or fyrd, levy or whatever) used by those on the anti-crown side (both in 1689 and during the Rebellion) as a way of safeguarding their liberties as opposed to hiring or recruiting professional soldiers which they found reprehensible.

everything here suggests to me that the framers intention was that every adult male should keep and bear arms to enable him to take part in the various functions of the militia at that time, which would include a form of policing, civil defence, national defence and self defence as part of a community. the framers needed a militia and people to bear arms on its (and by implication, their) behalf to uphold the state and law. this differs from what seems to be a view here that possession of arms is a god-given right and the only thing that prevents Cornwallis / Uncle Joe / Saddam / Osama / *insert current american bete noir here* from hopping on Concorde and taking you all out of your republic.
in short, the idea of individual "self defence" probably ranked lower, if at all, in the minds of the framers than the communal defence against internal and external foes, tyranny etc - modern "self-defence" against a criminal who is far more capable than his eighteenth century counterpart is not something that the founders could possibly have foreseen. the best defence existing in the eighteenth century against criminals would have been a group of armed peers a la the "hue and cry" (militia) which is what the 2A means

sw9,

the roman "right" to bear arms was rather like the feudal system in that all citizens according to their means had to provide for society - the patrici, equites and farmers providing the military force of the legions (plus of course the socii as time went on) wheras the proletarians contributed their children only. this is possession of arms for defence of the state and not "the granting of individual rights to self defence".
with regards to Cicero, do you know of the conspiracy of Cataline? reading that with those events in the back of ones mind does give it a new meaning.

[mister rogers]

agricola wrote:

"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."


Well, the problem with what you state here is that our nation was founded on the principle of God given inalienable rights. It was not what each individual held dear, it was a recognition by our nations founders that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. It was first recognized in the Declaration of Independence, since then it has been recognized in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and it has historically been recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States when it has interpeted the constitution - that our rights do not come from government or from men, but from our Creator and that they are inalienable, (ie we are born with them).

You contend that rights are abstract and relative things - fine that is your belief - it is not a belief shared by this country or its citizens. America is not a country founded on a race, or a specific culture, - it is founded on the belief in God given rights.

All science and knowledge, (gravity included) are based in certain foundational assumptions, ie. at some point they require a leap of faith.

You desire to avoid a discusssion of faith, but that is the at the center of the issue. By rejecting it you have essentially rejected the principles on which our nation was founded. That is okay, you a free to do so, but don't then expound on the meaning and purpose of our constitution and bill of rights, when you have already rejected their very foundation. To do so would be akin to a Muslim explaining the true meaning of Christianity to a Christian.

[KSFreeman]

Agricola, it's not like the streets of Filthydelphia or Baawwstan, were crime-free paradises. No, the Framers were very familiar with individual self-defense (see George Washington's will or the writings of Tommy Jefferson). However, self-defense has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

The laws of the Woroman Republic did address individual self-defense. However, you are correct that the arms bearing duty was not concerned with self-defense, but defense of the Woroman Republic.

[Bud Helms]

"... self defence as part of a community." Nonsense.

"i agree that RKBA is enshrined in the BoR - but IMHO its not a "natural right" given by god, rather that it evolved as the result of political and social developments ..." Thee dost not understand.

Take the case of a child, say, that is at the walking stage and had some human interaction. Raise your hand to it as though to strike. That child's reaction is an illustration of the God-given right to self defense. A natural right. Try it also with a pet dog. You will observe that it is universal. The urge to avoid, to defend one's self. Try it with progressively older humans. Eventually you will come to the point at which you endanger your own well being by projecting the threat. At that point you should get the point.

A natural right, regardless of the first instance of codification.

[agricola]

finally KSFreeman hits the nail on the head:

However, self-defense has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

sensop, the natural wish of self defence occurs in all things and is enshrined in the laws of every country that has claimed to be civilized. however there is a line drawn historically where societies decide that they will (or set conditions upon) or will not allow their citizens to have weapons for that self defence, because there is plenty of evidence that people, being people, abuse them and use the weapons for attack or political ends; as the history of almost every society on earth shows. IMHO self defence is a "right", if such a thing exists, RKBA is not.

[FPrice]

"however there is a line drawn historically where societies decide that they will (or set conditions upon) or will not allow their citizens to have weapons for that self defence, because there is plenty of evidence that people, being people, abuse them and use the weapons for attack or political ends; as the history of almost every society on earth shows. "

That sort of belief is probably one of the most dangerous philosophies in the existance of mankind. Because, stripped of all the pretty words it states, plain and simply, "Man cannot be trusted, therefore government must be the master of Man, rather than the other way around.".

How can you trust a government which does not trust you?

[Zander]

IMHO self defence is a "right", if such a thing exists, RKBA is not.

And you are willing to let governments decide that certain tools, especially those proven most effective, should be denied a free individual for that very Right.

What impertinence, what arrogance, what illogic!

One cannot exist without the other, sir...your not-so-humble opinion to the contrary.

[Bud Helms]

KSFreeman: "However, self-defense has nothing to do with the Second Amendment."

I don't speak for KSFreeman, but I think he refers to our right to defend against an oppressive government. That right has been interpreted as a collective right, at times, and as an individual right. I do not see the difference.

Agricola: "IMHO self defence is a "right", if such a thing exists, RKBA is not."

RKBA does serve the right of self defense, i.e., there are many ways to defend oneself; RKBA provides one way. It can be argued that the right to self defense is not separate from the right to resist an oppressive government. In fact, I argue this here and now. I also argue that the right to self defense does not preclude RKBA, but in fact legitimizes it. At some point there must be a reach of reason. I do not contend that a thermonuclear device is a proper personal firearm.

To assert that "... self defence is a "right", if such a thing exists, RKBA is not.", is mightily striving to make a point, if you will. I assume that you should only defend yourself up to a point? Or only use limited measures? Who decides that in the heat of the act of defense? "Thou shalt not kill, even in self defense" laws lead to slaughter of citizens. It has been shown. In the UK, I believe, as one example.

"... because there is plenty of evidence that people, being people, abuse them and use the weapons for attack or political ends; ..." That, Sir, is "Guilty until proven innocent", and, no insult intended, that view separates the sheep from Us.

[Blackhawk]

you also have a "natural right" to bash a neighbour over the head with that rock and kill him, or do whatever you want - since in our "natural" state there are no laws or methods of behaviour.

Surely you cannot be as dense as that statement implies.

Laws come from community, which comes from a need to band together to survive. If you kill your neighbor without justification, the rest of your neighbors will kill you. They will all learn that each of them needs to be circumspect in weilding the rock or club against a neighbor. A chief will emerge, usually one of the strongest, who will judge disputes and transgressions. It will be a society of laws.

How long does it take for such a society to form? Years? Months? Would you believe hours, and it will be stable within days.

[FPrice]

"That right has been interpreted as a collective right, at times, and as an individual right. I do not see the difference."

Generally (and i use that term loosely) the term "individual right" pertains to the belief that individuals may own firearms independent of membership in the organized militia, whereas "collective right" refers to the right of the state, not the individual, to possess firearms, usually for the organized militia.

It is one way of separating those who believe that individuals have no "right" to the private ownership of weapons from those of us who do believe.

[gburner]

Agricola has taken on a herculean task here and has borne the weight of his side well. However, green is not red no matter how many ways you come up with to explain that it is.

What fascinates me in this whole discussion is, after 225 years, the apparent continuation of a fundamental lack of understanding of the common Englishman (read Agricola) about why we as a people became fed up with British rule and kicked them out; why we made the choice to accept the Divine inalienability of our most fundamental rights as human beings and reject the notion of 'the Divine Right of Kings'.

[Bud Helms]

FPrice,

I meant that both rights exist. Simultaneously. Maybe a poor choice of words on my part.

[Ledbetter]

I leave my computer for a day and miss all the fun.

The "right to self-defence" is actually a legal defense, recognized in (most) civilized societies. As in, "I killed him because he was coming at me with a knife." "Not guilty."

It is not a "right" guaranteed, for example, by the Constitution. In the U.S., this right exists because this legal defense is a fundamental part of our laws, recognized by many to be based on a "natural right" people have to defend their lives and those of their loved ones against other people.

The Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of "Obligations" or the Bill of Whatever the Government Says.

"The right of the people to bear arms may not be infringed." That's a constitutional right, and that's enough. It is the supreme law of the land.

To say it is the result of British law, and then argue that the revolution severed all ties between our countries is inconsistent and disingenuous. The only basis for the Second Amendment that relates in any way to English law is that the Framers wanted no part of any laws that violated the truths we, in this country, still hold to be self-evident. Citizens have rights, subjests still have none.

Any "right" to free health care is a statutory pyramid scheme subject to withdrawal at any time. Time for a reality check.

[MeekAndMild]

you also have a "natural right" to bash a neighbour over the head with that rock and kill him, or do whatever you want - since in our "natural" state there are no laws or methods of behaviour.

Which shows an ignorance of biology as profound as his ignorance of history. Empathy, altruism, protection of self and kin group defined the limits of methods of behavior long before the law was recodified for the n+i time by a bunch of white wigged English lords.

[SW9M]

is freedom a natural right?