origin of the "right to keep and bear arms"

[BrianM]

it has long been a "natural" thing for man to kill another man. in the "wild", with all civilization and law removed, you have as much "right" to club your neighbour to death as you do to share your food with him because there is no convention.

You are assuming the neighbor would not have the desire for self preservation and fight back. The aggressor male would have to wiegh his chances of being hurt or killed in the fight to whatever benefit he would gain killing his neighbor. There would be a relative stalemate or peace in this "natural" state, because the desire to live is greater then the on to kill. Also, in your so called "natural" state, hate and aggression can not be the only emotion these people live by...there is also love and room for friendship, surely you don't think that at the core, people would kill their friends for no reason?

[agricola]

has anyone here read Hobbes' Leviathan?

And because the condition of man (as hath been declared in the precedent chapter) is a condition of war of every one against every one, in which case every one is governed by his own reason, and there is nothing he can make use of that may not be a help unto him in preserving his life against his enemies; it followeth that in such a condition every man has a right to every thing, even to one another's body. And therefore, as long as this natural right of every man to every thing endureth, there can be no security to any man, how strong or wise soever he be, of living out the time which nature ordinarily alloweth men to live. And consequently it is a precept, or general rule of reason: that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war. The first branch of which rule containeth the first and fundamental law of nature, which is: to seek peace and follow it. The second, the sum of the right of nature, which is: by all means we can to defend ourselves.

http://www.orst.edu/instruct/phl302/...-contents.html

[Blackhawk]

There's still a lot of clean up for you to do on your thread.

Ever heard of a "Mexican standoff"? Something worth studying....

[agricola]

have you found that immortal human yet?

[Ben Swenson]

I have.
His name is Woodrow Wilson Smith.

By the by, Ag, did you catch my earlier question?
If I - or someone else - compiled the unanswered questions/challenges from this thread, would you answer them point by point?

[DAVID NANCARROW]

Agricola- Most of us read the Declaration of Independence, as I'm certain our Founding Fathers did, and because of this inspiration of facts vs fantasy (Hobbs vs Jefferson), the people we placed in charge of forming a democratic republic made certain the laws were there to spell out what the governments could and could not do, and 10 articles were reserved from the beginning to protect the rights of the individual from the majority as well as the government. Unique in the history of the world, and so misunderstood to some here and many-apparently also to you-from outside. Think I'm wrong? It would be interesting to see where the people would go if international borders were taken down and the people had the ability to go where they wanted to and had the capability to do so. Name me the countries of the world with greater immigration problems than the USA. You can waste spit trying to "improve" us all you like-after all, the European governments have been trying without success for a few hundred years, but our Constitution just keeps getting and looking better all the time.

[Blackhawk]

have you found that immortal human yet?

I haven't been looking for one.

I have been looking for you to fulfill your moral obligations on this thread to answer the demands for proof to back up your statements or to admit that you cannot.

[agricola]

cordex,

aside from tamara's questions, which is something that i am still looking through, ive responded to most of the logical challenges, aside from blackhawks which is akin to explaining to a blind man the colour blue. death, like that colour, just is a fact of life.
that in itself means that its not a "logical challenge"

blackhawk,

listen to tamara - death happens, it is a fact, get over it.

another quote from Hobbes that is relevant:

And because the Athenians were taught (to keep them from desire of changing their government) that they were freemen, and all that lived under monarchy were slaves; therefore Aristotle puts it down in his Politics "In democracy, liberty is to be supposed: for it is commonly held that no man is free in any other government." [Aristotle, Politics, Bk VI]

[Blackhawk]

death happens, it is a fact

There you go again.

Prove it.

If you cannot prove it, admit that.

[agricola]

blackhawk,

open a newspaper, look at the Obituaries section. Death is a fact.

[Ben Swenson]

*laugh* You didn't answer my question, Ag. Again.
Even when I ask directly if you will answer questions that had not yet been addressed you sidestep the issue with:

ive responded to most of the logical challenges, aside from blackhawks

Most != All
*sigh*
Never mind then. If you can't or won't even respond to a very clear and direct inquiry such as "If I - or someone else - compiled the unanswered questions/challenges from this thread, would you answer them point by point?" with a direct answer, there's obviously no need for me to repost questions. I know you are capable of logical and direct debate, but you don't seem to be very commital at the moment.

Blackhawk: Death is a fact. If you want proof, look into cellular decay and - if nothing else - look into atomic decay. Something will eventually wear out. Yes - we accept "facts" on faith, but trusting repeatable experiments is necessary to remain a rational human being. It's part of learning. If I were you, I'd drop this argument because it doesn't make sense and merely is an overly wordy way of saying "Nobody knows anything. Nothing is absolute." Which is, of course, wrong.

[agricola]

ok list those questions

[Ben Swenson]

*grin* okay. I've got to be off to a gun show in a few minutes, but when I get home tonight I'll try to set aside some time to do just that.

[Blackhawk]

Cordex,

You and Tamara miss the point. Agricola denies knowledge based on anecdotal evidence, i.e., "faith", and makes broad conclusions based on faith which he asserts are fact.

If he has to admit that the most obvious thing that anybody knows, that death will come to everyone, is based on anecdotal evidence as opposed to demonstrable fact, his whole understanding will be shown to be based on unsupportable conclusions.

If you want to play his games with his pansophistic prattle, feel free, but he's unequivocally shown himself to be one devoid of intellectual honesty.

He made a statement of fact. I asked him to prove it. He can't. Nobody can prove that. Some things you just have to accept on faith, and he can't even admit that.

Beware the intellectuals, but cleave to the intelligent.

[agricola]

blackhawk,

death is a fact! it happens! to everyone at some stage! if there is no evidence for death then there is no evidence for anything - as your peers are trying to tell you

[Blackhawk]

agricola,

I apologize. You don't get it. You never did get it. So I apologize for challenging you beyond your understanding and ability to understand. Facts to you are what you perceive them to be.

[Byron Quick]

Part I

I think this article is pertinent:

THE TEXT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
By J. Neil Schulman
J. Neil Schulman is the founder and president of SoftServ Publishing.
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style. The Consensus.
A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.
That sounds like an expert to me.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:
"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
"The text of the Second Amendment is, '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.'
"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."
My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

Questions and Answers
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I have it italicized my questions for the sake of clarity):
The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to your numbered questions:

(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?
The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.

(2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?
The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.

(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia, is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?
No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, " grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms, " or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?
The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.

(5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped, " "well-organized, " "well-drilled, " "well-educated, " or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?
The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority;" this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.

(6) If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues cannot be clearly separated.
To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

(7) As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence:
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
(A) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
(B) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?
(A) Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
(B) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

[Byron Quick]

Part II


Concluding Comment
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."
So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.
And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution. Even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.
It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?
Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

Link here: http://www.saf.org/journal/4_Schulman.html

This is a link to the essay, "The Embarassing Second Amendment." The author, Sanford Levinson is a noted constitutional scholar, a liberal, and is in favor of gun control. http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/embarassing_2nd.html

[rennaissancemann]

If we're going to start quoting famous dead people to support the respective positions in our little game...


Hobbes (1588 - 1679)
Leviathan (1651)
A Law of Nature (lex naturalis) is a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a person is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or takes away the means of preserving the same; and to omit that by which he thinks it may be best preserved.

That every person ought to endeavor peace as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war; the first branch of which rule contains the first and fundamental Law of Nature, which is, To seek peace and follow it; the second, the sum of the right of nature, which is, By all means we can, to defend ourselves.

Grotius (1583 - 1645)
On The Law Of War And Peace (1625)
For all animals are provided by nature with means for the very purpose of self-defense. See Xenophon, Ovid, Horace, Lucretius. Galen observes that man is an animal born for peace and war, not born with weapons, but with hands by which weapons can be acquired. And we see infants without teaching, use their hands for weapons

Machiavelli (1469 - 1527)
Discourses On The First Ten Books Of Titus Livius (1531)
If a city be armed and disciplined as Rome was, and all its citizens, alike in their private and official capacity, have a chance to put alike their virtue and power of fortune to the test of experience, it will be found that always and in all circumstances they will be of the same mind and will maintain their dignity in the same way. But, when they are not familiar with arms and merely trust to the whim of fortune, not to their own virtue, they will change with the changes of fortune.[/i]

Beccaria (1738 - 1794)
On Crimes And Punishments (1764)
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such nature. They disarm those only who are neither disciplined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary one, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty - so dear to man, so dear to enlightened legislator - and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for the unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an unarmed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.

Montesquieu (1689 - 1755)
The Spirit Of Laws (1748)
Who does not see self-defense is a duty superior to every precept [of personal freedom]

If a slave, says Plato, defends himself, and kills a freeman, he ought to be treated as a parricide. This is a civil law which punishes self-defence, though dictated by nature.

The laws of an Italian republic [Venice], where bearing fire-arms is punished as a capital crime and where it is not more fatal to make an ill use of them than to carry them, is not agreeable to the nature of things.



"come sir, your passado..."

[USP45]

has anyone here read Hobbes' Leviathan?

Exactly which side are you debating for?

Was not Leviathan arguing for the free state of Man -- and the right to self-defense indirectly?



~USP

[agricola]

blackhawk,

why are people knocking you? dont you think that you may be mistaken here? if anything is a fact, then death is. it is guaranteed and every faith, every human being on the earth capable of comprehension is aware of the inevitability of death. your false superiority on this issue is puzzling to me.

death is a fact, just, as tamara posted, the sun rising, the earth going around the sun, the sea being wet or anything else that you see around you. you cannot disprove the reality of it, it is easily proved, although evidently not to you. what can be proved if death cannot?

[Blackhawk]

Spartacus,

Professor Copperud's analysis is what got me all excited about RKBA years ago. Before that, I was content to graze in the pasture oblivious to the gun grabber stuff going on in other states.

It's a very timely post you've made of an excellent analysis, especially considering how it was initiated.

The only thing I violently disagreed with then and my anger wells up again is Schulman's statement that:

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right?

The only thing Sagan knew was how to mine the taxpayers for multiple $billions to play with searching for extraterrestrial life. But, that's another matter entirely....

[agricola]

usp,

hobbes argued that, when the people decided to remove themselves from "the natural state" of total freedom, that the society that was created saw its constituents surrender part of their "natural liberties" to the sovereign (or sovereign body) in exchange for protection from the ravages of the "natural world" (ie the conditions of men at war using his terminology) and the resultant freedom to live their lives in a peaceable condition.
Hobbes was arguing against the "free state of man" as he famously believed that the conditions of life in that state were "nasty, brutish and short", but he did think that Man could come to a point of understanding with their sovereign when certain liberties were surrendered in order to maintain the rest of them in peace.
in the hobbesian worldview true anarchy is true freedom, civilized society is the "least free" but he makes a point that everyone considers their own society the "freest".

his idea of the "social contract" is one that is compelling. in the UK perspective, people did freely surrender their "right" to bear arms given the views expressed in Parliament after various incidents; the members of this society also surrendered its "right" to a part of its property for the NHS on the understanding that they would recieve free healthcare of quality. the fact that these "rights" were surrendered willingly means that the UK is a free society (albeit not in the total-freedom sense according to Hobbes).

the US has made its own contract between the people and the government (to use hobbesian language) at which certain of your "natural freedoms" were surrendered in exchange for peace - they were choices freely made under the same conditions as we made our choices, which means that both societies are composed of "free men".

[Blackhawk]

agricola,

Go back and read my response to Tamara's rising sun post.

Facts are verifiable and useful to predict future occurances with precision. After the ancients realized that they'd be in deep doodoo if the sun and seasons failed, they began worshipping the sun and making sacrifices to it to keep it happy. Who could argue that their religion was vain because after all, the sun kept coming up and the seasons never failed. Nobody could disprove the reality of the sun rising and the seasons being the result of the sun worship.

As Tamara said later, anecdotal evidence is not proof. Nevertheless, people use it to prove to themselves that the stock market will rise or fall because that's what it did last time under comparable circumstances.

As I said, you don't know the difference between faith and fact, and you really shouldn't torment yourself with things you cannot understand.

If it will make you feel better, I am absolutely convinced that we all will die sooner or later. That's based on faith because there's no way to know when a given person will die.

You see, there are questions that seemingly can be answered only one way or one other. Intellectuals must answer them that way. Intelligent people, however, can easily say "I don't know" when they don't know.

[Blackhawk]

the fact that these "rights" were surrendered willingly means that the UK is a free society

You have topped youself!

That is the most asinine statement I've read all year!