• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

History and Purpose of the Second Amendment[W:192,794]

Status
Not open for further replies.

jimithyashford

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
808
Reaction score
156
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
So I made a video and blog post about this which I will link here:https://pointofcontention.wordpress.com/2017/11/13/the-history-and-context-of-the-second-amendment/

That link goes into greater detail, quotes sources, reads from historic texts of the time, etc, but I will also recap the general case here:

While the Second Amendment was written by revolutionaries in the revolutionary era, and while the general sentiment of empowering people against tyrants was quite strong at the time, that is not why the Second Amendment exists or why it is in the US constitution.

We have to ask the question why was gun control and the mustering of militias not left up to individual states? Why put that in the federal Constitution, why put that under federal protection, why take the gun control power off the table for individual states? Further more why did fiercely revolutionary and pro-gun people like Patrick Henry (who is often quoted by Gun advocates) oppose the second amendment if it was really about arming people against tyrannical government, something Patrick Henry was all about?

The answer is that the Second Amendment was not about that at all. The Second amendment was about forming a militia to avoid the creation of a military caste, and about preserving State control of Slave Militias.

The aversion to standing armies is well documented at the time, I quote many sources. The usage of slave patrols was extremely common, I quote many sources, and the fear that the Federal government would use their control over the militia to undermine the slave trade is also well attested, I quote patrick henry himself at length.

It seems to be far beyond any reasonable doubt that while revolutionary sentiment was popular at the time, that state would have been content to leave the arming of their people against potential tyrants as a state matter if not for the issues of slave patrols and a federal militia, and that those are the reasons why the second amendment of the US constitution exists, rather than leaving the matter at the state level.

I would sincerly like to know if anyone, after hearing from the rather authoritative sources I cite in my research, can reasonably deny this to be the case?
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

So I made a video and blog post about this which I will link here:https://pointofcontention.wordpress.com/2017/11/13/the-history-and-context-of-the-second-amendment/

That link goes into greater detail, quotes sources, reads from historic texts of the time, etc, but I will also recap the general case here:

While the Second Amendment was written by revolutionaries in the revolutionary era, and while the general sentiment of empowering people against tyrants was quite strong at the time, that is not why the Second Amendment exists or why it is in the US constitution.

We have to ask the question why was gun control and the mustering of militias not left up to individual states? Why put that in the federal Constitution, why put that under federal protection, why take the gun control power off the table for individual states? Further more why did fiercely revolutionary and pro-gun people like Patrick Henry (who is often quoted by Gun advocates) oppose the second amendment if it was really about arming people against tyrannical government, something Patrick Henry was all about?

The answer is that the Second Amendment was not about that at all. The Second amendment was about forming a militia to avoid the creation of a military caste, and about preserving State control of Slave Militias.

The aversion to standing armies is well documented at the time, I quote many sources. The usage of slave patrols was extremely common, I quote many sources, and the fear that the Federal government would use their control over the militia to undermine the slave trade is also well attested, I quote patrick henry himself at length.

It seems to be far beyond any reasonable doubt that while revolutionary sentiment was popular at the time, that state would have been content to leave the arming of their people against potential tyrants as a state matter if not for the issues of slave patrols and a federal militia, and that those are the reasons why the second amendment of the US constitution exists, rather than leaving the matter at the state level.

I would sincerly like to know if anyone, after hearing from the rather authoritative sources I cite in my research, can reasonably deny this to be the case?

major fail. read CRUIKSHANK and the writings of St George Tucker

the second amendment was intended to guarantee a natural right the founders believed preceded and pre-existed government. one of the purposes of that was to allow people to form militias but the main purpose was to guarantee the natural right of self defense with arms. You cannot have a natural right that pre-exists government if its dependent upon joining a government controlled entity and the militia act clearly made militias subject to governmental (congressional power) which proves that the right has nothing to do with membership
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

major fail. read CRUIKSHANK and the writings of St George Tucker

the second amendment was intended to guarantee a natural right the founders believed preceded and pre-existed government. one of the purposes of that was to allow people to form militias but the main purpose was to guarantee the natural right of self defense with arms. You cannot have a natural right that pre-exists government if its dependent upon joining a government controlled entity and the militia act clearly made militias subject to governmental (congressional power) which proves that the right has nothing to do with membership

This is a pure fantasy. If they wanted to outline such a right, they would have done so.

If you want an originalist interpretation, then go confiscate guns from all blacks and women, see what violating the fourteenth amendment buys you.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

This is a pure fantasy. If they wanted to outline such a right, they would have done so.

If you want an originalist interpretation, then go confiscate guns from all blacks and women, see what violating the fourteenth amendment buys you.

The Constitution doesn't outline rights, it limits the powers of government. Women were not prohibited from owning firearms.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

The Constitution doesn't outline rights, it limits the powers of government. Women were not prohibited from owning firearms.

The bill of rights explicitly enumerates rights. They even addressed firearms, directly, without enumerating the right to self defense that TD's fantasy narrative asserts.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

The bill of rights explicitly enumerates rights. They even addressed firearms, directly, without enumerating the right to self defense that TD's fantasy narrative asserts.

It enumerates the government's ability to restrict them. It even includes rights not even listed being protected from government restriction.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

major fail. read CRUIKSHANK and the writings of St George Tucker

the second amendment was intended to guarantee a natural right the founders believed preceded and pre-existed government. one of the purposes of that was to allow people to form militias but the main purpose was to guarantee the natural right of self defense with arms. You cannot have a natural right that pre-exists government if its dependent upon joining a government controlled entity and the militia act clearly made militias subject to governmental (congressional power) which proves that the right has nothing to do with membership

So then your case is that:

1- These extremely literate and learned men really intended the amendment to protect something they didn't bother to state in the amendment, and weren't really concerned with implementation of militia, the thing they did explicitly mention? Seems like a stretch.

2- That even though the preceding analog amendments for almost every single state gave the explicit stated purpose of avoiding standing armies as the cause, that's not really what they meant, the really meant this other thing they decided they didn't need to actually include or mention in the text? Seems like a stretch.

3- That Patrick Henry, one of the fiercest defenders of the natural right of individual self defense and individual gun ownership, misunderstood the second amendment and was strongly opposing something that actually agreed with him? Seems like a stretch.

I mean, what you saying makes sense if you ignore what they law actually says, what the preceding drafts actually say, what the previous laws it was based on actually say, and what the people debating it in congress actually said at the time. Yeah if you ignore all of that your case is a great one.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

It enumerates the government's ability to restrict them. It even includes rights not even listed being protected from government restriction.

Incorrect again. A right is a legal entitlement.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

The Constitution doesn't outline rights, it limits the powers of government. Women were not prohibited from owning firearms.

The technical debate of whether the constitution grants rights or simply protects inherent rights from limitation is an interesting one, sure, granted, but the nature of that distinction was not even entirely clear or agreed upon by the ratifiers at the time, and obviously neither the US constituion or the various state constituions of the original 13 present the second amendment as protection of an inherent right to self defense. It doesn't say that, it doesn't say anything like that, none of the early governing documents do. They all give the aversion to standing armies and support of the militia as the basis for ensuring universal gun ownership. In fact if anything most of these laws limited rights rather than protecting them, as they mandated militia particiaption and the US constitution specifically removed the clause allowing pacifists to opt out. It's not "you may own a gun to protect yourself" its "you must own a gun so you can protect what the government deems it neccesary to call you to protect." aka, militia duty.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

So then your case is that:

1- These extremely literate and learned men really intended the amendment to protect something they didn't bother to state in the amendment, and weren't really concerned with implementation of militia, the thing they did explicitly mention? Seems like a stretch.

Were not "solely" concerned.

2- That even though the preceding analog amendments for almost every single state gave the explicit stated purpose of avoiding standing armies as the cause, that's not really what they meant, the really meant this other thing they decided they didn't need to actually include or mention in the text? Seems like a stretch.

Here's a list of all state constitutions that mention the right to keep and bear arms:

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

Of note:

Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).
1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

Not a single state constitution holds exclusively to a collective view.

3- That Patrick Henry, one of the fiercest defenders of the natural right of individual self defense and individual gun ownership, misunderstood the second amendment and was strongly opposing something that actually agreed with him? Seems like a stretch.

I mean, what you saying makes sense if you ignore what they law actually says, what the preceding drafts actually say, what the previous laws it was based on actually say, and what the people debating it in congress actually said at the time. Yeah if you ignore all of that your case is a great one.

Why do you say Patrick Henry opposed the Second Amendment? He opposed the Constitution that didn't include a Bill of Rights, and he played a significant role in getting Madison and the convention to consider, write and ratify the Bill of Rights.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

Incorrect again. A right is a legal entitlement.

Well, he's not wrong about the constitution granting all rights not enumerated as being assumed. He is correct on that.

But it is also worth noting that the nature of from where are rights derived and what source holds authority over right, can they be granted or merely recognized, etc, is not some simple given answer, it's a major debate in western legal philosophy stretching back to the pillared senates of Rome. So there is more than enough room of educated and wise people to be on both sides of that question.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

The technical debate of whether the constitution grants rights or simply protects inherent rights from limitation is an interesting one, sure, granted, but the nature of that distinction was not even entirely clear or agreed upon by the ratifiers at the time, and obviously neither the US constituion or the various state constituions of the original 13 present the second amendment as protection of an inherent right to self defense. It doesn't say that, it doesn't say anything like that, none of the early governing documents do. They all give the aversion to standing armies and support of the militia as the basis for ensuring universal gun ownership. In fact if anything most of these laws limited rights rather than protecting them, as they mandated militia particiaption and the US constitution specifically removed the clause allowing pacifists to opt out. It's not "you may own a gun to protect yourself" its "you must own a gun so you can protect what the government deems it neccesary to call you to protect." aka, militia duty.

Except that there was no requirement for everyone to own a gun, nor a prohibition on anyone not in the militia to own a gun. Self defense was recognized as a right by several states prior to the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

Incorrect again. A right is a legal entitlement.

So if the government says that an individual doesn't have a right, that right doesn't exist?
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

Were not "solely" concerned.



Here's a list of all state constitutions that mention the right to keep and bear arms:

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

Of note:

Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).
1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

Not a single state constitution holds exclusively to a collective view.



Why do you say Patrick Henry opposed the Second Amendment? He opposed the Constitution that didn't include a Bill of Rights, and he played a significant role in getting Madison and the convention to consider, write and ratify the Bill of Rights.

Because he did? In the linked material I quote him at length as he passionately argued against the notion of having gun ownership and the militia mandated at the federal level. He was certainly not against the concept of the militia, or against the concept of gun ownership, but he fiercely opposed essentially any power whatsoever being taken from the states and granted to the Fed, that included the power of gun control and the mandate for the militia. Or to put it another way, he didn't think a state SHOULD have gun control, but believed even more strongly that states should self govern and if a state DID want to limit gun ownership for whatever reason that the Fed should not be granted the authority to say no.


Also, you seem to be standing by the notion that this thing the constitutions mention over and over again, the use of a militia to avoid standing armies, was not the man concern and an inherant right to be armed agianst your government was the main concern, even though the former is mentioned explicitly over and over, and the later is not mentioned explicitly at all, at best is alluded to.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

So then your case is that:

1- These extremely literate and learned men really intended the amendment to protect something they didn't bother to state in the amendment, and weren't really concerned with implementation of militia, the thing they did explicitly mention? Seems like a stretch.

2- That even though the preceding analog amendments for almost every single state gave the explicit stated purpose of avoiding standing armies as the cause, that's not really what they meant, the really meant this other thing they decided they didn't need to actually include or mention in the text? Seems like a stretch.

3- That Patrick Henry, one of the fiercest defenders of the natural right of individual self defense and individual gun ownership, misunderstood the second amendment and was strongly opposing something that actually agreed with him? Seems like a stretch.

I mean, what you saying makes sense if you ignore what they law actually says, what the preceding drafts actually say, what the previous laws it was based on actually say, and what the people debating it in congress actually said at the time. Yeah if you ignore all of that your case is a great one.

Your own case is hogwash, and you intentionally left out the overall picture. You took the slavery route to grab hearts and minds of the knee jerkers.
The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery - Fact or Myth?

'
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

Because he did? In the linked material I quote him at length as he passionately argued against the notion of having gun ownership and the militia mandated at the federal level. He was certainly not against the concept of the militia, or against the concept of gun ownership, but he fiercely opposed essentially any power whatsoever being taken from the states and granted to the Fed, that included the power of gun control and the mandate for the militia. Or to put it another way, he didn't think a state SHOULD have gun control, but believed even more strongly that states should self govern and if a state DID want to limit gun ownership for whatever reason that the Fed should not be granted the authority to say no.

The Second Amendment doesn't give the federal government to power to limit gun ownership by individuals in any way; Article 1, Section 8 gives the federal government the power to limit gun ownership by the militia in every way.

Also, you seem to be standing by the notion that this thing the constitutions mention over and over again, the use of a militia to avoid standing armies, was not the man concern and an inherant right to be armed agianst your government was the main concern, even though the former is mentioned explicitly over and over, and the later is not mentioned explicitly at all, at best is alluded to.

I don't believe I've ever stated anything about the right to be armed against your government. The right is to be armed individually for any traditionally lawful purpose, and the purpose behind the Second Amendment was to protect the individual right against federal restriction which gives the benefit to the state to be able to muster a militia. Article 1 Section 8 gives the federal government all of the power it needs to organize and discipline the militia.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

Well, he's not wrong about the constitution granting all rights not enumerated as being assumed. He is correct on that.

But it is also worth noting that the nature of from where are rights derived and what source holds authority over right, can they be granted or merely recognized, etc, is not some simple given answer, it's a major debate in western legal philosophy stretching back to the pillared senates of Rome. So there is more than enough room of educated and wise people to be on both sides of that question.

If you're arguing that there is a legal right, a legal right will exist as a legal entitlement. A legal entitlement will only be enforced if it is enumerated.

Natural rights are just the legal entitlements that we will fight for. They are irrelevant here where we are discussing what legal rights we already have, that are explicitly enumerated.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

So if the government says that an individual doesn't have a right, that right doesn't exist?

Perhaps you should clarify what you mean as a "right" so that you don't change the meaning mid-sentence in pursuit of an agenda.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

Perhaps you should clarify what you mean as a "right" so that you don't change the meaning mid-sentence in pursuit of an agenda.

Does your definition of "Legal right" include the power of the government to remove it at a whim and make it not a protected right?
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

If you're arguing that there is a legal right, a legal right will exist as a legal entitlement. A legal entitlement will only be enforced if it is enumerated.

Natural rights are just the legal entitlements that we will fight for. They are irrelevant here where we are discussing what legal rights we already have, that are explicitly enumerated.

How does the explicit requirement fit in with the 9th Amendment, which seems to indicate that rights exist without being enumerated?
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

Oh dear and fluffy Tom Jefferson, not this horse**** again.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

Does your definition of "Legal right" include the power of the government to remove it at a whim and make it not a protected right?

Of course. You only have the legal entitlements that your government allows.

If you want to move goalposts to the philosophical arguments for a specific legal entitlement, then you correspondingly venture away from the set of legal entitlements that are currently in place.

How does the explicit requirement fit in with the 9th Amendment, which seems to indicate that rights exist without being enumerated?

They can be enumerated in the law, through legislation, rather than the constitution. The founders knew there would be rights they couldn't fit into the BOR that would be important, hence the 9th which states that the list provided in the BOR was not intended to be comprehensive for all time.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

This is a pure fantasy. If they wanted to outline such a right, they would have done so.

If you want an originalist interpretation, then go confiscate guns from all blacks and women, see what violating the fourteenth amendment buys you.

your posts demonstrate a paucity of knowledge on this subject
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

Oh dear and fluffy Tom Jefferson, not this horse**** again.

these idiotic attempts to revise what the second amendment intends and stands for is based precisely on the fact that gun banners DO UNDERSTAND what the second amendment means and they have to reinterpret it to pretend their anti gun schemes are not in violation of the second amendment
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

your posts demonstrate a paucity of knowledge on this subject

So you implicitly admit that you have no evidence for your bizarre speculation that they meant something that's completely distinct from what they wrote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom