The second amendment to the Constitution provides the right to bear arms. This amendment goes back to the days when it was important to be able to raise a militia. How relevant is this need today? How is it other countries such as Britain and Canada do without guns?
- Sign in or Sign up to post comments
- send to friend
- report as spam
It's clear from what the Framers said that they intended the 2nd amendment to apply to individuals. The well regulated militia part was about groups of people bearing arms. Without it large organizations of armed people could form with no regulations.
Do we still need the right to bear arms? That's a good question. But if we don't we need an amendment. I don't care if SCOTUS would say it's OK without an amendment all congressmen and the president should be just as concerned with protecting the Constitution. If SCOTUS says something is unconstitutional or constitutionally required that's it, and the other branches don't have a right to overrule that without an amendment, but if SCOTUS let's congress and the president have their way with it you still shouldn't vote for something you believe is unconstitutional even if you think it would be a good idea.
If we are serious about getting away from the increasing duality we have in government today we must stay away from the things that the two radical factions have used to divide the country until we get them out of the system. If we don't the same things will split us just as badly.
It is time for American citizens to come together and reclaim our government the founding father pretty much gave everything they had in life so we could have this chance to take back a government we let fall into the hands of zealots that are willing to invest their time an money in politics when most of us won't dirty our hands or waste our time in the process. If we don't take our government back from them we deserve what we get.
Who we get for president is only tip of the iceberg. More important we must rid ourselves of our Senators and Representatives in our own districts that buy our votes with pork barrel spending and personal privilege. While we all agree the Senate and Congress is doing a awful job most of think the folks we set to Washington are doing a lot better than the rest. Well, mine sure aren't and neither are most of yours when the hoe the party roe vote after vote.
If we want moderate government we need a moderate platform and leave our personal positions on abortion, guns and other issues that split off voters out of the platform. The Church, NRA and others do their jobs very well on those issues in politics. So lets do ours and get the extremist out of office and replace them with people that represent the majority of country not just the right or the left.
Gordon Couger
Stillwater OK.
Gordon, I agree with you 100%. This is the kind of conversation Americans need to be having instead of arguing over who's right and who's wrong.
I think we need to clean house and get all new representatives. I also think we need to stop ALL lobbying as it is today. No money or gifts, or promise of jobs should be allowed. There should be a statute of limitations, too, on how long a specific group can lobby. Permanent lobbyists on company payrolls should not be allowed.
And, of course, all the directives and bills that this admin has put through in the past 6 years need to be stopped, including NCLB.
It's time for the people of this country to do their civic responsibility and take our country back. It is OUR country and this govt is supposed to work for us.
The reason this was included in the constitution was based on a very sound, well-proven historical fact. The gravest danger by far that peoples of any country will ever face will invariably be their own government. (Remember that the armies of our revolution fought a war against their own government in order to overthrow it) Foreign invasion, statistically, will always be in second place as a danger to any given population.
cheers to that
------MY MYSPACE www.myspace.com/themanwhohasnoname E-MAIL zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
The gun control issue is dead. John Kerry went hunting for the world to see in 2024, and no candidate (except for Senator Joe Biden maybe) will support any significant legislation.
This entire issue has been exploited by the Democrats and Republicans to divide us. This whole project is about unity.
I understand that many people have strong feelings on this subject, as do I.
I just think we need to spend more time on issues that are going to affect us during the next 4 to 8 years. Gun Control laws are not going to change significantly
The G Blog
You can not change the constitution without the legislators and if the legislators would do anything you wouldn't need a constitution anything. So take your gun issues to your state legislator until you win.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
Pretty much every one has an opinion on the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms. I think we should keep it for a couple of reasons.
1) There are two towns in Indiana where they are 20 miles apart where one town guns are banned and another town every citizen must have one. The town that has guns banned has not had one violent death with a gun in 14 years because when people break in their house, car, rob them, etc. they defended themselves. The other town has about one person killed per day with a gun involved.
2) Do you know how guns were banned at Virginia Tech? Well about two school years ago in the law school department a person brought in a gun one day and went crazy, meanwhile a student went to his car, picked up his gun and shot the person saving many lives. If one teacher had a gun at Virginia Tech, on that terrible day when so many innocent lives were lost. Only the mad man may have died and not the innocent students and teachers.
3) England banned guns and the crime rate sky rocketed because people couldn't defend themselves and even police officer deaths went up because they didn't have a fire arm. If you want a gun you can get one if you really tried even if it is illegal. Just like the prohibition, if you wanted alcohol, you could get it. If the shooter at VT was still alive and arrested, what charges would be more serious, bringing a gun on campus or killing 32 people. The guy new what he was going to do that day and really didn't care if he illegally brought a gun to campus.
4) 90% of all cases of murders with a gun were purchased illegally and did not go through the back round check, which if those criminals did, they could not buy a gun anyway. Now some states like Virginia do need to make their laws tougher but that is about the only state besides AK and WY which are pretty much all hunters and really no crime occurs there we need to clean up the streets gangs and criminals so there won't be many crimes in America.
Finally what my point is that you can't really on law enforcement 100% of the time to protect you so you need to protect yourself. It is proven that you stand more of a chance to have an accidental discharge and hurt or kill someone than ever having to use a firearm to protect yourself. The Right to Bear arms should stay in power. I am not saying arm every citizen but they should have the choice if they want to because we have the strictest laws in the world in order to buy a firearm and they should not get tighter. If you spend longer the one year in jail you can't buy one which is good but, take a look at the laws they are really tough.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Learn from our mistakes, history's mistakes, and other countries mistakes, so we don't make the same mistakes today.-Redtail Hawk
I am reminded through history that the reason so many European nations fell to Hitler's war machine is that the civilians weren't allowed to have guns. When the Japanese were planning Pearl Harbor, one general suggested just having a main land invasion of the United States as well. However, another general said, 'behind every blade of grass is a loaded gun' and the Japanese decided against it.
Nevertheless I think we can still cut down on crime by limiting how guns can be illegally attaind. One we need to stop the smuggling of guns into our country. Two we need tougher prosecution of people who illegally own guns, Three we need to do more to enforce the "Don't buy for the other guy" and Four, our police need more power to take guns from those who have them illegally, sell them illegally and use them illegally.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
"The harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph," Thomas Paine
Regarding gun laws: Only the law abiding citizen's obey them, and don't think you can stop the bad guys from getting them, we continually spend about a Billion Dollars a year trying to keep drugs from coming over the border. Is that working? My state (Florida) understands people have the right to protect themselves as the Supreme Court has ruled the Police have no obligation to do so. We also know our Founders would have lost if they were not armed. The Second Amendment makes the First Amendment possible. Didn't you ever wonder why it's NUMBER TWO? Don't think tyranny can't happen again here. Look what's happening to our rights now. Illegal spying, grabbing personal property for someone else's personal financial gain! Never give away any Constitutional Rights, thousands of people died so we could have them. People are people and people in government are no different. Never trust a government that doesn't trust it's own citizens.
People kill people. they can kill with almost any impliment, not just a gun. We need to address the issue from the poeple stand point and not take weapons away from the victims. A lot of the victims wouldn't be victims if they had a gun in their possesion. However, every one that owns a gun should have to show that they can handle the gun. This requirement is already in place in many states.
I live in the country. We have been broken into only once in 25+ years. We were at work and the county police guy that came out said it was probably some guy who knew our son and our work schedule since they were "nice" to us. In otherwords, they didn't trash the place as well as take the usual electronics and hunting rifles. He then went on to tell us about the drug dealers who live out in the country around us as well as rolling met labs. We never got our property back, and since then I want a gun in the house for the time someone who is not so "nice" breaks in and we are home.
If tough, and I mean tough, laws were passed and enforced concerning crimes committed in this country using guns, legal or illegal ones, doing the crime wouldn't be worth the risk. We have plenty of laws on the books, but deals are made, pity taken on criminals rather than victims, and overcrowding in jails are all excuses to not get tough. Put the public on notice...If you use violence against another individual and an illegal weapon is involved, you won't see the light of day regardless if death is involved...that's it. Have special jails for these folks and don't let them have time to mingle, watch TV, workout,...food and water is it. They won't get out so no need for rehab measures. By the way, for those who fail rehab, same treatment. It would save a lot of money and time and cut down on crime. I know it sounds heartless, but I was a '60's liberal and have seen nothing but increases in violence and uncivil behavior. What ever happened to LOVE? Looks like liberal love didn't work and tough love is the answer. People will find and excuse for bad behavior and use those of us with good intentions to let them off easy. It hasn't worked. Now with more violence in movies and videos (another excuse for giving up personal responsibility..."the violent movie/video made me do it") we see more breaking down of behaviors that enhance a society. I ramble when a topic gets to me. Bottom line...hold people responsible to existing laws and don't let the bickering make us loose sight of the bigger picture. I agree with another's comment about Unity '08 being about getting to the bigger issues on a national level and let individul states and even cities pass their own restrictive laws. At least then, one can leave and go to a state or town where similar beliefs are upheld which is easier that leaving the whole country.
It is true that the UK doesn't have guns, but actually, Canada has more guns per person than we do.
Besides, the Second Amendment makes us impossible to succesfully invade, because every crazy farmer has a shotgun, and there's way too many people with rifles, propane tanks, and skilled marksmen to win against.
I read several aricles about how the crime rate in Australia skyrocketed when they banned guns. Groups of thugs would just walk into homes and take what they wanted because they knew the homeowners had no guns. As the saying goes "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns".
I know the National ID Card is unpopular, but it can help us keep firearms from the dangerous criminals, (allegedly).
I remember how my 7th Grade English teacher once said that he believed that Gun Saftey should be taught in school just like Economics, Driving, and Health. I would have to agree with that, though in todays society it would be almost impossible to do.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
"The harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph," Thomas Paine
but this gets me no protection from u
Judging by the number of teens killed in traffic accidents, rise in sexually transmitted diseases, and debt due to credit cards being ill used, I wouldn't want to trust the schools to teach gun safety.
I hate guns. They scare me. Having said that, all of my uncles, my grandfather and my dad were hunters. We had a rifle in our home. I learned at an early age never to touch them and what they could do. So, I think education about guns is important. They are a reality in our society and as much as I would love to ban them, there would just be a huge(r) unregulated black market for them.
As with so many ills in our society we blame the object not issue that put a mad gunman, drug addict etc. in that position in the first place.
I agree we need to end some of the stereotypes associated with guns. The "no tolerance" policies in our schools are really going to far. One of my friends got suspended for a day when I was in Elementary because he drew a soldier carrying a gun. Plastic soldiers and even making shooting motions with your hands are practically considered crimes against humanity by the education system. I think gun saftey education in our schools can help improve the condition of the view of a gun.
______________________________________________________________________
"The harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph," Thomas Paine
Anyone frightened of guns or wants them banned should read "A World Without Guns" by Dave Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eison. Maybe you will rest easier!
Richard S. Poleet Jr.
How relevant is it today! This arguement does not matter! This view is subjective. As it depends on the individual you talk to. What about ones right to self-protection from a criminal act. Lets not even get into the fact. It has been decided time and again(Supreme Court). That Police protect society as whole not the individual. Therefore if a criminal act is perpetraded against you. The police react after said act. So in essence the only protection against this act is you and your firearm. No different then this right was applied in the old days. One could get in to the historical nature of owning firearms. Or the family heirloom pass down from generation to generation. The recreational aspect of firearm ownership. Also hunting, so on and so on. Why bother! Its simple, Your Consitutionally rights are guaranteed. Unalienable, Irrevocable and so on. Therefor can not be striped away by any constitutional process. Further would imply, would not stand up to Constitutional challenge to the Supreme Court if you tried. The nation you mention, Britain, Australia, Canada! Have different constitutions, where the citizens have less right then in our Union. What may be constitutionally valid there. Usually is not here! That why we are guaranteed more freedoms then any other nation in the world. We separated from the Monarchy(Britain) in order to create a more perfect union. Not to follow in Britain's footsteps or the rest of the worlds anti-gun bandwagon. The only reason to take the guns out of a legal populeuses hands. Is for the very same reason Adolf Hitler, the English Monarchy and other regimes striped said right to create a subservient population. Just look at the history of every nation on earth. History tell us this force disarmament was done to subvert a people. Not help them! Criminals will always have guns! The do in Britain, Australia and Canada, what make you think criminals will not here. The largest producers of handguns in the world are not even American companies. Thus, there will always be the availability of gun for criminals. Why shouldn't law abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves and their families.
I do believe their needs to be more gun ownership responsibility. Not to mention a middle ground on the application, background checks for said gun ownership. As long as one passes said background check and is a US Citizen. This right is unrevokable. For if we pick and choose which Constitutional right to apply and not apply. This subjective, to the beholder. Not to mention a injustice the The Constitution. What will be next!
Peace!!! Love!!! Harmony!!! Health!!! Long live the Great Federal Government of these United States. All those who dwell with in her. Or serve Her!
Middleboro-MA-rslcp@comcast.net
When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns!
I saw this saying on a bumber sticker of a pick-up truck once, and I believe it is relevant:
2nd Ammendment makes all others possible!
______________________________________________________________________
"The harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph," Thomas Paine
We don't need the Second Amendment. Like you said, this goes back to when we needed to raise militias. We don't now.
The problem is, although most Americans want more gun control, the minority is much more vocal and more active on the issue. If people on the other side stood up in greater numbers, I guarantee you guns would be a lot harder to get, if we didn't repeal the Second Amendment outright.
Of course we have no need of the second ammendment. This would make unruly minority groups easier to deal with. It would be much harder to load them on the train if they were armed.
What minority are you referring to? There are more than 65,000,000 gun owners in the U.S.
You know, the really unruly ones, like Catholics, ethnic Irish, Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, people who wear hats. In other words, if you disarm the population, everyone is at risk of becoming part of an "unruly minority", subject to the whims of the majority. The Nazis were elected.
well at least u can sing kumbia on the way to the salt mines
not worth comment
My right to bear arms is to allow me to defend my body, my possessions, my community, and my freedoms. To quote Elbridge Gerry, one of many founding fathers who felt that the People have a right and duty to bear arms, not only to defend against invaders, but against the government itself: "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." By establishing a registry of firearms, instead of simply a registry of people licensed to own them, the government can more easily locate and take possession of weapons when it so pleases (as in the case of Nazi Germany mentioned earlier). We do not lose our rights all at once, but a little at a time so we do not notice.
It's our right to own firearms. All those who would say that guns are bad or the cause of most crime in America I would tell you this....We do not need more gun laws in America, we need the ones we do have to be enforced! A few years back there was an altercation outside my mother's home, it was on Christmas, and my family and I went out to see what was going on. It turned out that two neighbors were fighting in the street and one woman had a pair of sissors, trying to stab the other woman. My brother saw this and grabbed her hand and stopped her from stabbing the other woman. At this time the womans husband (or boyfriend or whatever) came out of his home and pointed a .357 at me, I backed away and went into the house to call 911. when the police came I told them about the man threatening me with a handgun, it was close enough to my face that I could tell the police every detail and that it was indeed loaded. The police did their job and arrested the man, however when the court case was heardsome weeks later the prosecution in my opinion failed to do their job. The prosecuter offered this man a plea bargan making it a 1st dagree misdemeanor instead of a felony which would have prevented this man from buying another gun (leaglly anyways) even though he was in found in possession of an unregistered handgun.
My point is this...If we don't enforce the gun laws we have in place then how do we know they don't work and we need more? Here's a thought, make the sentance for breaking these laws more severe and less people will choose to break them (and those who do might not get a second chance to do so),and don't punnish the citizens who do fallow the law.
There is NO mention of guns to be found in the constitution. Therefore there is no right to own guns. Please reread the second amendment and note the part about a "well-regulated militia". I am so sick of people misquoting our founding fathers' most famous document. The amendment was added by the Anti-federalists (who would only ratify the constitution which included a Bill of Rights) to ensure that states would have defensive powers similar to the federal government. Think about it..."a well regulated militia..." and states rights. Does that sound, perhaps, like the national guard? Now THEY have a right under the constitution. Please don't bastardize the 2nd for your own purposes. If you want a gun ownership law, then lobby for that.
What part of "...the right to KEEP and BEAR ARMS shall NOT BE INFRINGED" is confusing to you?
A militia in those days consisted of every able-bodied male in a certain age range carrying their personal firearms. The individual right to own firearms has never been successfully challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Connecting the second half of the sentence to the first ("A well regulated militia")...
I believe your assumption of an unfettered individual right to bear arms is flawed for three reasons:
You are asking us to believe that the greatest group of intellectuals (as judged by their deeds - not their education) who ever assembled to work toward a common cause would write a sentence that stated something other than the obvious grammatical intent of the sentence. These men knew the english language, and they constructed that sentence with a clear intent - and the intent was to provide legitimacy for a state, county, and if need be - township militia. The Founders were much more worried about conflict between the newly-formed states, and they wanted the states to have some sort of protection against a possible future hostile federal (or foreign)government. The right of the individual to bear arms was hardly thought of, if at all. If they wanted to give individuals the right to bear arms they would have written two sentences instead of one.
At various times, Boston, New York, and Philadelphia all had some form of gun control restrictions in public areas. They really couldn't fathom a world where a firearm couldn't be kept in a house, and they had the common sense to realize that allowing two drunk and ornery men to brandish pistols in a tavern was a bad idea.
You are also playing into a common misconception; in colonial Massachusetts, if you lived in Boston, or even in a reasonably sized town, there was no real reason to own a musket or rifle; people who lived in the populated areas of New England were far from bumpkins, and they didn't walk around armed during their daily activities. They also didn't have a lot of discretionary income for a seldom, if ever, used item.
If you consider the entire population, colonial New England in 1785 was the most civilized place on the face of the earth. Citizen for citizen, the average New Englander had more education, ate a better diet, lived in a nicer dwelling, and had a better grasp of news and events(since a larger percentage of the population could read and write) than any country in europe. The other northern colonies were no different; eastern Pennsylvania had been settled for a long time, as was New York state, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.
No part of New England bore any resemlance to Dodge City.
This concept (of walking around town armed)would have been as strange to those people as walking into a Starbucks carrying an Uzi would be today. The picture of colonial America where every person carries a weapon is mainly a creation of a later generation of writers, and of Hollywood.
Why would colonial Americans feel a need to protect themselves from people they had known their entire lives?
They did own sidearms (those who could afford them), and these were used for defense while traveling (in unfamiliar territory), but most people were not very mobile. Travel was expensive and difficult - mainly because of the poor roads. It was generally easier to travel by boat; it cost more to ship an item from Vermont to Virginia than it did to ship the same item from London to Boston.
Even in the rural areas, where firearm ownership was much higher, the average quality of a firearm was fairly poor; marginal quality was all that most New England farmers could afford. It was possible to be a wealthy New England farmer, but it wasn't easy, and most rural people lived from hand to mouth. And rural New England wasn't the frontier; most farmers either grew their own beef and Pork, or they traded produce for beef, pork and fish in the nearest local town. It wasn't necessary to hunt for dinner in colonial New England.
The third reason is telling: the revolution turned into open conflict only when the British marched to Concord to seize and destroy arms cached by the Massachusetts militia. These arms were bought and paid for by the townships; they were not owned by individual citizens. The move to confiscate a store of legally owned community weapons was the spark that truly started the Revolutionary War.
I have no real problem with people owning firearms, but I do believe in restrictions (such as background checks)based on a healthy dollop of common sense. I'm not trying to take your deer rifle away, but I am not in favor of every Tom, Dick, and Harry packing heat in public areas.
I have studied the issue for a long time, and I don't see any convincing evidence of an unrestricted individual right to bear arms in the language of the constitution.
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
I am pretty sick of hearing all of this talk about what the founders true intent was. Sure they were great men and it is a good philosophical question, but what matters isn't what the founders wanted but what we now want. The founders lived in a time far different from ours. People like to point out that the founders couldn't have envisioned what we have today as reasons that what they wrote is now outdated and needs to be revoked. But the fact that the founders couldn't have envisioned a society like we have today means that we need to stop wondering what it is that they intended and start worrying about how we want to deal with the problems that we face today.
Also, people have been claiming that we no longer have any need of militias. I would say that is right. Right now there is no need, but is that to say that there will never again be a need? Sure we have a National Guard, but hypothetically what would happen if the trends in voting continued and a congress could be voted in that would try to make this country a dictatorship. When our rights start getting stripped, people will want to revolt to get them back. With their right to vote gone, they only have a violent revolt as recourse. I realize that this is an unlikely scenario, but we could indeed have others, like our country being invaded and the National Guard fails in defending us, or with the more needed recruits if they could bring there own weapons it could help fund the war effort. Just because right now there is no reason for people to own their own weapons for the defense of their country doesn't mean that in the future there won't be one.
Your view of Colonial history is certainly different than any other I have studied. I think your view is called "revisionism".
You obviously gave a lot of thought to your response...
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
Ruuka's right, you know.
I'm not going to respond point by point to your diatribe, but I would like to mention a few things:
The gun is a symbol in our culture, and it is manipulated by both sides of the argument. For frontiersmen, hunters, law-abiding citizens of an era before the invention of 911, the gun was not a symbol. It was a tool, used primarily for the acquisition of game and occasionally self-defense.
Our Founding Fathers lived in this era, and so the idea that people should have guns was pretty much akin to the idea that people should have hammers. They didn't feel that a government needed to regulate hammers, and if occasionally people got drunk and hit somebody with a hammer, well, that's part of the price of liberty.
Another part, a far more real part to men of this generation, of the price of liberty is that sometimes free men had to defend their rights and lives against those who would infringe on them. Whether this would come from inside our country or outside is a moot point. Americans have always had the individual responsibility for protecting our liberty, period.
If you're afraid of guns, don't worry: I'll protect you when it all hits the fan. You have the right NOT to own a gun if you so desire. Discussion of what the word 'militia' once meant is red herring, and you know it.
So don't try to flim flam us with your revisionist, fear-based take on what TJ and the boys had in mind. Aversion to a standing army, an antiquated but bedrock American ideal, means that any force taking action against the rights of Americans has to fight street-by-street, block-by-block, house-to-house against every Jimbo and Bubba with a deer-rifle and home-court advantage.
My money's on Jimbo and Bubba.
JR
Jeff, we've agreed and disagreed before. On this issue, I have to disagree.
The Minutemen who showed up at the Concord Bridge brought their weapons on the run, weapons that had been stored (as most were) in their homes. What the British came to seize were kegs of gunpowder and small carronades that were being stored in a certain cellar in town. Quantities of powder and small cannons were hard to come by, and very expensive, and required a communal collection of funds to pay for.
Rural people still had to deal with frequent attacks by hostile Native Americans, as well as the even more frequent depredations of wild animals such as bears, woodland bison, wolves and lynxes. The percentage of people in possession of a firearm was far higher than you've painted it. Certainly the rural areas started far closer to the big cities than they do now, in terms of miles, and the vast majority of all rural families owned at least one firearm. Even your settled communities had a larger percentage of firearm owners than you seem to think. Anyone taking a journey from one major city to another was well advised to take along a "horse-pistol" or two, large-caliber pistols with longer than usual barrels for greater accuracy at long range. Well into the 1800's most of the more traveled roadways along the Eastern seaboard had notorious stretches where it was common for people to be robbed, raped, murdered or simply to disappear.
True, many larger New England cities had restrictions on the carrying of loaded firearms around in the open. Also true; it was not at all uncommon for rural visitors to carry a rifle into a hotel lobby or a bar, though they were usually unloaded, because such weapons were too valuable to leave out of one's direct supervision. This is why we came up with cases for rifles, usually a soft bag the rifle could be slipped into with a strap to allow it to be slung over the shoulder on the back.
Also, do not forget that the Constitution was written directly after the Revolutionary War; horrendous fighting took place between the colonists and a portion of the Iroquois (Six Nations), as well as the Shawnee, Miami, Huron, Wyandot, Ojibwa and Potowatamies. A cursory glance at the basic needs for troops, in terms of numbers needed at each and every settlement for protection in case of a new outbreak in hostilities, and only a fool would want to have to pay for an army or militia of that size. Thus, it becomes obvious that the responsibility for the defense of each settlement was thrust squarely onto the shoulders of the residents thereof. Residents who absolutely HAD to be armed.
Finally, let's look at the words of the Second Amendment itself. "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." In the parlance of the times the difference between a militia and an army was simple. Armies were supplied with weapons and appointed officers by their government, militias supplied their own personal weapons and elected their own officers. In both cases ammunition (powder and lead to be molded in each person's individual bullet-mold) was supplied by the authority that vested the military formation with legitimacy. Militias were drawn from the armed citizenry; without the unrestricted ownership of firearms by citizens, there could be no militia. Since a militia was considered indispensible (necessary to the security), the people had to be allowed to own firearms. Simple as that.
There was NO INTENTION of ever having a standing army. Armies were raised, until about 1815, as needed. Look to the early history of the wars we fought against the various tribes between the Alleghenies and the Missippi River up until the defeat of General Proctor and the death of Tecumseh at the battle of the Thames river in Canada in 1814. Governor Josiah Harmar was appointed General and commissioned to raise a force against the Shawnees and Miamis, which was decimated. Gen. Arthur St. Clair was then commissioned to do the same, and his force was annihilated. Finally, Gen. Anthony Wayne was commissioned to do the same and succeeded in defeating the coalition of tribes under the leadership of Blue Jacket at the Battle of Fallen Timbers. The army was then disbanded.
There you have a little bit of actual American history. If you disbelieve me, by all means ask at the Wisconsin State Historical Society to be allowed to look at the Draper Papers; a collection of interviews with principles from both sides of the conflict we came to know as the War of 1812, but specifically involved with the war between the frontiersmen and the Native tribes and their allies. Look up Tecumseh and pick a more scholarly book published within the last thirty years or so. Research the incident at Concord somewhere other than Wikipedia; it's often scant or innaccurate on detail.
Phil Rowlands, Stoughton WI
1st Recon Bn., 1st Mar. Div. `82-`86
I will stand by the facts as I presented them. I actually have been researching Concord, Lexington, and Bunker Hill for many years (and not in Wikipedia). There was a store of cannon and powder at Concord (moved well before the British arrived), but there were also muskets, longrifles, and a few sidearms. The Minutemen who showed up at Concord were reacting to the alarm, and they did bring weapons from home, but what is relevant is that many of these weapons (not all)were issued by the militia - and not owned by the townspeople. I will say again - owning a quality weapon was beyond the reach of many townspeople (again, not all).
If my post gave the impression that NOBODY owned a weapon, then I failed to communicate the message properly. Firearm ownership was higher, percentage-wise then, than it is today. My real intent was to remove the portrayal of these people being armed to the teeth during their daily activities - this IS a misconception (and firearm ownership was NOT ubiqutious in the settled areas of 1785 New England, despite what many believe).
Another misconception about New England during that era is that it was on the edge of the wilderness - and that just isn't the case - until you got into Maine, western Pennsylvania, western New York, or other outlying areas. Your chance of actually being attacked by a bear in 1785 within 100 miles of Boston was probably no greater than today. It may actually be greater today in some areas of New England because of reforestation.
Much of the area in New England that is now forest was once farmland - and even in 1785, people had been living in New England for almost 150 years. Very often you can be hiking in New England (in a thick forested area), and come upon ruins of older farms - and many of these date back to the 18th century. As Bill Bryson said in his book "Made in America - a history of the English Language", the New England farmer "was barely hanging on in the 18th century, and soon after the turn of the century they decided (in very large numbers) to become Midwestern farmers instead". Also remember that wood was used to build and repair ships, to build housing, and as a fuel for stoves, and when you start thinking about it, you can see how the primeval forest had rapidly retreated west away from the coast by 1785 in New England. And as with farmland, many small centers of population in New England have disappeared. There are areas in Massachusetts and New Hampshire where sizable towns once existed, and many of them have disappeared to the point where historians can't agree on exactly where some of them were located. That fact is quite amazing, when you think about it, but we know these towns existed because of period letters and diaries.
It is true that the population density doesn't compare with modern times, but New England was settled and civilized by 1785. Wild animal attacks (except on the edge of the frontier, which was a long way from population centers in 1785 mileage) were not common, and there was no danger of Indian attack unless you ventured well beyond the edge of farmland into virgin forest. Where this was exactly, could vary quite a bit from state to state. Pittsburgh was a frontier outpost, Philadelphia was a thriving cosmopolitan city, and the land in between moved from farmland to wilderness depending on how tillable the soil was (and elevation played a role).
All of the above information can be readily sourced with a little digging (and as you say, not on Wikipedia). The problem with history is that we grow up believing certain things, and much of the time the truth is actually quite different. There is no proof that Patrick Henry ever said "Give me liberty or give me death"; that was an invention of a later biographer who wrote a tribute to Henry that was full of inaccurate statements. When a falsehood becomes accepted as truth, it can be very difficult to set the record straight.
As for the second amendment, I have no real problem with people owning firearms (I have owned several myself in the past). I do question how people can differentiate between their "absolute" right to own a handgun or a machine pistol, and the less obvious right to possess a shoulder-fired disposable rocket. If the second "right" is not absolute, than the first "right" must be less than absolute.
I found your post very interesting.
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
A Militia would be equipped with standard military issue personal arms of the day: M-16(full auto capable assault rifle), Baretta 92(no restriction on magazine capacity).
Can't connect the dots for this to the thread it's on, but my reading of the court's history indicated that a militia is entitled to the appropriate military weapons at any given time. These weapons can be owned by individual but used when called upon by the militia. That is all the federal "right" there is. All other firearms and uses may be addressed through litigation to allowed, limited, forbidden or whatever; so, I expect states and smaller jurisdictions will employ every possiblity at one or another...and why not?
Frankly, I do not expect any additional federal action other than what maybe applied as interstate trafficking that violates a states rights. In other words, I do not think NYC case with gun sellers will get anywhere unless the State of NY has supporting legislation. and I do not think the federal legislators or courts will touch any of it.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
da some will never get it until they wrench their atm card from their hands
By infering that there is/was no right for individuals to own guns are you saying it is/was illegal for them to own them? If that is the case, why didn't they collect all the guns owned by individuals? The answer is that the Federal Gov't has no authority to regulate the private ownership of guns. If a state gov't wants to ban private ownership of guns let that state put it to their citizens on a ballot. Those who view the ownership of guns as a right far outnumber those who view it as illegal. Who needs a gun ownership law, millions of Americans own guns already. If you want a law that outlaws guns you are the one who needs to lobby.
The usurpation of the power of the states and local governments by the Federal Government is the root cause of the most serious problems we face today. It is none of the Federal Government's business if individuals own guns or not, or for that matter what kind of guns they own. A man without a gun is a subject and a man with a gun is a citizen.
While I have no problem with the basic right of any man/woman to own a gun, I do think there should be some sort of limit on the type of weapon. Afterall, the founding fathers could never, in their wildest dreams, have ever envisioned weapons such as submachine guns, tanks, surface to air missiles, etc. I think their concept of the right to bear arms had its limitations. Meanwhile, while abortion, the right to bear arms, health care, soc. sec, etc are important issues; they all pale in comparison to the real threat facing this country and world peace......ISLAM. The sooner all Americans wake up to this fact, the better. The general population has no idea what a massive threat Islam poses to our way of life, our religious freedoms, and peace in the world. A recent CNN poll showed that 15% of Muslims currently living in the US felt it was OK to kill in defense of Islam. This is an astounding figure, yet virtually NOTHING was said in the media about these findings. Do the math. There are currently about 3.2million Muslims in the US, which means that some 450,000 Muslims would have no problem killing a non-believer!!! Wake up America
But here's the thing, I dont know about you but I am a gun owner, and I own sub machine guns, but i know that tanks and weapons of that type are a little much. But you cant restrict us from keeping the weapons that we own. That could develope into a civil war, because i know i would fight to the death to protect my liberties to own a gun. And when some hippie liberal, who gave up his weapons, tries to take my guns awy, he's going to get blown away. Besides, when you take away the American Peoples' guns, you are leaving the rest of the world armed, so we will become a weaker nation, leaving us open to attack by these damned Muslims. Other nations wont be restricted by our laws of gun control, and they will still have sub machine guns, and sooner or later those muslims you were so worried about will attack and over take us if you take our guns away.
Next time you liberals go shooting your mouths off about gun control, and about the high number of crazy muslimsin our nation who are ready to attack, think about how restricting our rights to own guns is putting us in even more danger than putting the suicidal Muslims into our streets.
The real threat to America is our own government, it's treasonus trade and foreign policies, it's disconnect with the voters who elect them and their loyalty to lobbyists and organizations who don't give a rat's rear end about America. We have an out of control executive branch that has committed a legion of crimes against the American People, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. We also have a spineless, self serving, treasonous Congress who are as guilty as the executive branch, if not more so, for not doing their sworn duty to uphold and defend the Constitution and impeach Bush and Cheney. It is no longer the rule of law, it is now the law of the jungle. Elected officials are no longer held accountable like the subjects are. There are two sets of rules now, one for the government and one for the People.
Find the common denominator that runs both parties leadership, gives them money, gets the laws they want passed, fights the wars they want fought, robs us of our rights and freedoms and sends our young off to die in wars based on lies. They own the MSM and they own the politicians and soon they will own you and your country, or what's left of it.
a lot of people uck in todays america..man i have no ideal how we could nave lead r children down this path....today seem to think u merely call 911 and all will be fine..they seem so be unable to understand that police action is after the crime has been commited...they arrive the police...gee ur dead...gee they took everything u have worked for and then they ask the big question do u know who done it.............gee people we need a little personal responsibility.............
"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"
To most PEOPLE this does not need to be interpreted. The PEOPLE will mantain their right to arms, enabling them to participate in whatever militia may be needed for the security of a free state. Even if that miltia is a group of Korean shop owners warding of looters in post Rodney L.A., or a militia of one protecting his home. As for wether an "arm" is a gun or not(DUUH), I won't even address that.(I see this all the time. People will start discussing what the constitution means without quoting it, for fear of their convoluted logic being exposed.)
There is a difference between a militia and the National Guard, one is controlled by the federal government...guess which one.