[TheFunnyMan]

I have a 12 page paper due for my modern political thought class. My topic is going to regard the 2nd Amendment, and the intent the founding fathers had with it. If any of you historical experts could please give me information or citations where I may get information from the critical years (1776-1800) regarding the 2nd Amendment, it would be greatly appreciated. I'd like to work mostly with Hamilton and Madison, but any informmation would be welcomed. My intent or thought thus far, is to demonstrate why this right is so important and who the founding fathers wanted to be armed. Thanks in advance.

[Jim March]

I've put up a lot of material here that will help:

http://www.americanminutemen.org/reinhardt.htm

[Stetson_CO]

There is a class called 'Political Thought'??


c):{

[TheFunnyMan]

What exactly did you think political science majors do?

[ravinraven]

Sorry to waste your time during finals. You must be attending a college somewhere. I make the following statement and ask you for comment if you have time.

The second amendment is dead on college campusses in two ways. 1] The free speech guarantee is canceled. 2] The part about the government not establishing a religion is dead also. The Multicultural [read Antikultural] program establishes a religion compolete with ceremonies, rallys, chants, dogma and the attempt to erase and destroy the ceremonies, holidays and thought of at least the Christian religion.

Thanx for your time,

ravinraven

[El Tejon]

TheFunnyMan,

One of my fave Madison quotes is from JAMES MADISON: A BIOGRAPHY IN HIS OWN WORDS 38 (Merrill D. Peterson ed., 1974). Madison boasted that he could hit a man's head at 100 yards with a musket.

"Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." THE FEDERALIST No. 46, at 299 (James Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961)

In Federalist Number 29 Hamilton argues that the armed populace would defend their rights and liberties and as such an enumerated BoRs would be feckless. As well, the armed populace would render a standing army unnecessary.

JOHN SHY, A PEOPLE NUMEROUS AND ARMED (1976).

"Tyrants have never placed any confidence on a militia composed of freemen." THE ANTIFEDERALIST PAPERS 75 (Morton Borden ed., 1965).

"[T]o preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion." ROBERT LEE, ADDITIONAL LETTERS FROM THE FEDERAL FARMER 170 (New York, T. Greenleaf 1788).

WHY

Not meaning to be a smart alec, but the answer is to preserve liberty. The Second Amendment is about ensuring the people have the ultimate power to overthrow their government and defend their liberty.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are succesful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." 2 JOSEPH STORE, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION 620 (Boston, Little, Brown & Co. 1873) (first published in 1833).

You often hear the 2A cited in debates about "CCW" or self-defense. This is incorrect. The 2A has nothing to do with protection of home and hearth, or duck hunting for that matter.

To understand this, you must understand the readings of the Framers. They read the Italian republicans, the English and Scot Whigs, ancient Rome and Greece, Saxon history, the Bible. All pointed to the neccessity of free men requiring arms.

I wish I could go further with you. Tell me what direction you are going.

WHO

The people means individuals. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265, reh'g denied, (1990) ("the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution.").

Always they bring up the National Guard and the militia. It is some religious rite amongst them to ward off the eeevil of freedom. The militia is not the National Guard. The National Guard is Big Army. Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990).

The militia would spring forth from the armed people. As Robert Lee (in case you don't know Robert Lee is "Lighthorse" Henry Lee, a War of Independence militree leader and father of Robert E. Lee) said in the writing I cited above, "[a] militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves."

The Supreme Court of Joejuh would later write, "[t]he right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated [think well-trained] militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846).

[TheFunnyMan]

El Tejon,
Thank you for your reply, I found it very informative and helpful. I attend Ohio University, and the professor of my Modern Political Thought class is an open marxist. Our final paper is supposed to be about how elitist the constitution was/is, and why we should amend it or outright discard it for a more equal system. Writing that would insure me a good grade, but I opting to write something a little more realistic, and demonstarte how great that document is and why our most important freedom was shortly added to it. Anything you can provide along those lines would be very appeciated.

[HankB]

...the professor of my Modern Political Thought class is an open marxist. With the fall of the Iron Curtain and the abject failure of communism, it seems the only place one can obtain Marxist indoctrination these days is on an American college campus.

FunnyMan, I admire your spunk in wanting to rub your commie professor's nose in his own drivel, but there's an old proverb you might wish to consider: when you wrestle with a pig, all you get is dirty, and the pig, well, he enjoys it.

Expect this commie will abuse his power to lower your grade. (Being a marxist, I'd expect nothing less.) He'll probably regret not being able to send to somewhere for "re-education."

[grampster]

Funnyman,

I would be curious to know the outcome of a conversation you might have with your professor ie: Sir, do you wish me to produce a paper that will satisfy and agree with your political leanings, completed to the best of my ability? OR, may I write a paper that expresses my own views, properly annotated and referenced? Which will earn me the best grade?

grampster