Article from The Atlantic - "The secret history of guns"

[G27RR]

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people... to disarm the people is the best and most efficient way to enslave them." - George Mason, co-author of the 2nd Amendment

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

"On every question of construction, [let us] carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson

I'll go with Sam Adams, George Mason, and Thomas Jefferson over some writer in a magazine as to what the 2nd Amendment means.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...secret-history-of-guns/8608/?single_page=true
Adam Winkler, "The Secret History of Guns", ''Atlantic Magazine'', Sept 2011.

This article by a UCLA prfessor is well worth a read. It is more likely contradict the cherished beliefs of dyed-in-the-wool anti-gunners than damage the pro-gun side.

 

[goon]

Yes and no. The idea that few people had arms, advocated in the book "Arming America," turned out to be a bunch of bunk and got the author's tenure revoked. He hasn't been heard from since...

Didn't quote the whole thing because I wanted to save space.
I've never read that book - I've drawn my conclusions based only on what I've found in my own research as an aspiring reenactor. FWIW, the quote I'm thinking of is in regard to civilian arms. I'll try to find it to give a proper citation in case anyone would want to look it up, but it goes something to the effect that scarcely one settler in ten has a gun.
But this was in PA and I'd be a fool to think that the situation in every colony was the same when I have no evidence one way or the other at this point. The truth is that the colonies were very much not universal at this time.

On muskets, given that they were designed with something like a 12 year service life in mind, they were obviously more robust and heavier than would have been desireable in a hunting gun. And as you note, they consume a lot of valuable powder and lead. A smaller bore fowler, trade gun, fusee, or whatever it ends up being called would have been a more practical choice for the average person who needed an economical gun, but didn't need it to stand up to being used in hand to hand combat. It's also entirely possible that some number of those who showed up for militia service without guns may have left their weapons at home as a means of defense for their families. I'm not saying that no one was armed, but right now I have seen at least some evidence that being armed may not have been as universal as we all think. One other thing that hurts being able to identify how many guns might have existed at this time is that guns were so valuable that they were recycled into new guns until their parts were thoroughly worn out.

Again, I don't think it really matters if the idea of a well-armed population is partly folklore. It's obvious from reading the words of the founders as well as the words of state constitutions that existed before the US Constitution was ratified that the private ownership of firearms was heavily supported.

 

[Mike1234567]

Colonial Firearm Regulation (PDF)

 

[goon]

Mike - thank you. One thing I that escaped my notice until now is the influence of the Quakers and their pacifism Pennsylvania. But this is one of those individual factors - each colony was unique.

 

[Standing Wolf]

There isn't now nor ever has been nor ever will be anything to debate about the Second Amendment. It means exactly what it says.

What's debatable is whether government will respect or infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

[USAF_Vet]

What's debatable is whether government will respect or infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

I think that has been answered many times already, and the answer is "infringe"

 

[AlexanderA]

There isn't now nor ever has been nor ever will be anything to debate about the Second Amendment. It means exactly what it says.

But what exactly does it say? Granted that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right, nevertheless there's still plenty of debate about the scope of that right. Justice Scalia left lots of room for "reasonable" restrictions in his opinion in the Heller case. Personally, I think his opinion was poorly written. It tossed out the "militia clause" as mere excess verbiage, whereas a broad reading of that clause (that is, that the militia consists of the body of the whole people) would have cemented civilian ownership of a wide range of military weapons. Likewise, Justice Alito's opinion in the McDonald case wasn't as strong as it could have been -- he based the extension of the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment on "substantive due process" rather than on the "privileges and immunities" clause as Justice Thomas would have done (overruling the Slaughterhouse cases).

The RKBA, legally speaking, at this point in time, is not clear at all. We need at least one or two more pro-2nd Amendment justices on the Supreme Court before anything can be counted as settled.

 

[goon]

But what exactly does it say? Granted that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right, nevertheless there's still plenty of debate about the scope of that right.

Anymore, I'm convinced that rights exist whether they are enumerated by the Bill of Rights or not. If congress wasn't specifically given authority over something, why do we assume that that any authority to regulate it ever existed?

Of course, I realize that this point of view is different from how most, including our Judicial branch, see the Constitution.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Manifest Clarity

What is interesting about the laws illuminated in the linked PDF is the consistent theme of requiring able-bodied men to be armed and equipped.

Requiring that freeholders have within their households serviceable arms.

When this context is considered, the dependent clause of the Second Amendment becomes much clearer.

In a casual discussion, recalibrated for modern English, the dependent clause might be seen thus: Look, we know that it's a good idea for people to be armed, and in fact have required it in the past for their own protections and the good of the community, and we're not gonna make this mandatory, but keeping in mind that the security and preservation of freedoms of us all is important, we're gonna institute the following so y'all can continue to participate in the defense of yourselves and others . . .

It's almost as though they were apologizing for not making gun ownership mandatory.

I can hear the arguments now . . .
"Looke, brother Zachary, wee musst require of the Peeple thatt theye bee, all of them, armed and prepared."
"Ah, brother Benjamin, we struggle heere to assure thatt our Government hath not the Power to mandate Militia service, thus shoulde wee only remind them of its advisability, and forbid the abolishment of an armed Citizenry."

The struggle was not so much to limit the conditions under which men might be armed, but rather rather to remind them that there was at least one really good reason for them to be armed, despite its not having been expressed as a mandate.

 

[Heretic]

It may be true that a lot of people didn't have their own guns during revolutionary war times, but thankfully that is not true today.

 

[AlexanderA]

It's almost as though they were apologizing for not making gun ownership mandatory.

In the early days of the Republic, the states all had militia laws, that typically required all able-bodied males within certain ages to report at least annually for militia musters, bringing with them their personally-owned firearms to be presented for inspection. That's where the mandate was. The federal 2nd Amendment made sure that there was no federal interference with this system. In fact in the 1790's, the regular federal army consisted only of a few hundred men. The nation's defense rested on the militia. (As an aside, in the South, the militia had the important secondary purpose of suppressing possible slave insurrections.)

What subsequently happened was that in the years after the War of 1812, the annual general militia musters fell into disuse, or degenerated into all-day drinking fests. The general militia, as a practical matter, was replaced by better-disciplined volunteer militias, who were armed with standardized weapons allocated to the states by the national government. It was these volunteer militias, and new enlistees, that fought the Civil War.

If we're trying to determine the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, we have to look at it in the social context of the 1790's, the time of its adoption. Everybody (except women, children, the old or infirm, or slaves) was the militia, and all were expected to be armed with weapons suitable for military use. Fast-forwarding to today, this would mean that states could require everybody to own AR-15's, and to show up with them on given days on the local courthouse lawns. Clearly, Justice Scalia and the Court majority in Heller didn't want to go this route, and therefore simply declared the militia clause a nullity (which still left the individual right, which they couldn't ignore).

 

[CapnMac]

Originally posted by G27RR
I'll go with Sam Adams, George Mason, and Thomas Jefferson over some writer in a magazine as to what the 2nd Amendment means.

I'll see you and raise you, Tench Coxe:

The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

(emphasis added)

Reading this always make me want to append an "amen."

Now, since we have history swirling about here, one of the ways the South was armed in the War between the States was with the allotment of Militia arms from the federal arsenal. Militias called up and "federalized" formed the basis for most of the Regiments the several States raised, and on both sides, too.

Not that an RKI can generally education an anti that the USG used to provide military weapons to US citizens, the better than they be trained. Or that "well regulated" meant knowing drill commands like form square; charge bayonet; or the like. Few enough even recognize that our standing Army used to be formed as a levy from each of the States. (Which means having to explain that a levy is not a levee; that States have rights; that "is" is a word expressing a condition of the verb "to be" . . . )

 

[Standing Wolf]

Anymore, I'm convinced that rights exist whether they are enumerated by the Bill of Rights or not.

Precisely, goon. Every human being is born with rights. They're an intrinsic part of what makes us human.

The only question is whether governments respect and protect or trample our rights.

I think that has been answered many times already, and the answer is "infringe"

Most unfortunately, USAF Vet, I'm afraid you're right.

 

[USAF_Vet]

It may be true that a lot of people didn't have their own guns during revolutionary war times, but thankfully that is not true today.

I don't know if this is true or not. Obviously, the majority of people here are gun owners, but to say that X% of people in colonial times had guns and Y% today have guns, Y>X may not be true.

 

[Heretic]

I get your point. But,I could arm myself and several others, I'm sure most of us could say the same.

 

[Mike1234567]

I've given some thought to buying several budget-priced pistols (probably Hi-Point 9mm) just to stow away for loan to neighbors should there ever be a need during a Katrina-like event.

 

[rori]

Enough!!!!! I am a free man. I owe nothing to anyone. I defended my country when called upon to do so thru voluntary enlistment. I was wounded 3 times during that enlistment and quite frankly don't feel that I owe anymore, but would willingly give it if asked. I will never give up my gun, period!!!!! So cuss and discuss this issue all you want I am prepared to die with my gun in my hand if necessary. I surely have no wish to live without it.

 

[Heretic]

Good man!

 

[goon]

I hesitate to add this to the discussion because it's only slightly relevant, but I feel that it's evidence that not everyone was as well-armed as our traditions would have us believe.

A couple things I've found that pertain to this discussion:

1. "Not a man in Ten is able to purchase a Gun... Not a house in Twenty has a Door with either a Lock or Bolt to it." - Thomas Barton to Richard Peters in a letter dated July 30, 1755. I don't have the primary source but it's cited in both Jim Mullins, Of Sorts for Provincials, 136 and in William Hunter, Forts on the Pennsylvania Frontier 1753-1758, 211.

2. "It is true, on the first alarm multitudes came, some with Arms and some with pitchforks" - PA Governor Robert Morris recounting the response to an Indian Raid, November 29 1755. Colonial Records, PA Archives, volume 2, 532. If guns were so prevalent and everyone had one, why did some arrive armed only with farm implements?

3. The residents of Cumberland County PA state that they are "in a defenseless condition, having neither arms nor ammunition" in a 1755 document titled Petition of Defense from Cumberland. It was signed by 68 residents of the county. PA Archives, Colonial Records, volume 2, 386.

One thing to keep in mind - again - is that colonies were very unique in this era. They were not a cohesive group in any respect and could barely unify long enough to oppose a very serious French threat. This information is specific to PA and other colonies could have been and in some cases were much better prepared - especially southern colonies that were facing the constant threat of slave rebellions.
Still, anyone who's been to central or western PA lately would find this hard to believe. In my experience, many residents of rural PA are currently armed to the freaking teeth!

 

[TexasBill]

The Second Amendment does not grant a right: it recognizes one. By the rules of English grammar, which Thomas Jefferson certainly understood, even if Mr. Winkler doesn't, the militia clause is entirely dependent on that right not being infringed. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." cannot stand on its own because it is meaningless as a sentence. "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” without the comma, is a complete sentence. The Second Amendment is not ambiguous at all.

Scalia's opinions in Heller and McDonald were as much political as they was legal and, to be perfectly honest, it's probably for the best. While we might relish the prospect of the Supreme Court holding that the Second Amendment prohibits any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, it could eventually backfire on us. Never forget that, even though it is difficult, the Second Amendment can be repealed or modified. Just look at what various states have done to hedge RKBA sections of their constitutions. For example, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution says: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power by law to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime." That second clause meant the citizens of Texas could not legally carry a handgun for more than 120 years.