Founders not confused about individual RKBA

Status
Not open for further replies.

kludge

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
2,634
Location
Indiana
I know we've done this before, but specifically regarding the Heller case, this thread is devoted to quotes from our Founders that show they were not confused about the meaning of the "right of the people" or "shall not be infringed."

My contribution:

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

-James Madison

The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

-James Madison
 
If you are going to quote then you might want to provide a reference, otherwise there is no reason to think the quote isn't simply made up to suit your needs.

Such as my sig. Unless yo took the time to look it up (or already have done so), you have no idea if Teddy ever actually said it or not since I didn't cite it.
 
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

(Jefferson Papers, p. 334, C.J. Boyd, 1950)

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

(Thomas Jefferson Papers p. 334, 1950)

“I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”

(Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)
 
I offer the following. I have no idea as to their validity. But they sound good. :)

http://catb.org/~esr/fortunes/rkba.html

A few examples:

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

-- James Madison, The Federalist Papers

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.

-- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

"The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun."

-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms...

-- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789

But unfortunately, the Founding Fathers are not here to defend the great experiment in democracy they created and their successors have chosen to only selectively live up to their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
-
 
Everyone knows it is about individual RKBA. Some just thought they could twist it because it was not worded in modern english.
They however were aware they were manipulating and simply taking that challenge, much as a lawyer will argue and support something they know to be false if they believe there is a chance in winning.


However the Supreme Court is tasked not with deciding what they feel is right or wrong on constitutional matters, but with applying the constitution as they understand it.

Changing the constitution is a process, and can be done in congress. The Supreme Court however is merely supposed to apply it, without bias to what they feel is right or wrong.
Most of the Supreme Court justices are very intelligent people that do in fact know the meaning of the 2nd. It is one of those issues that is not a grey area, unlike some others.

There is a lot more than just the Bill of Rights for understanding the meaning of the Bill of Rights. The preamble, the well documented comments and discussions while creating it etc..Any intelligent and educated man or woman would come to realize the exact meaning of the 2nd researching history. Not all will however agree it should exist, and some will therefore try to manipulate less educated individuals. They will though know that is exactly what they are doing.

So to most, even the educated antis, it has not been about whether it was meant as an individual right or not, but whether the average person is capable of verifying that on a factual basis without it becoming a legitimate issue.
The fact is that they were not. It did become an issue, and it did cause people to question it. Much of the public was in fact not intelligent or motivated enough to reference history, understand the meaning, and then move forward to the issue of how they feel about it, and whether they wish to change it or leave America with the rights that have made it the great beacon of the world it has been.

The simple fact that it ever actualy did become an issue, shows most Americans are not educated or grounded in reality about the past of America, the ideologies held by the founding fathers, or the sentiments in history. They know only about themselves, thier day to day lives, and some of the brief facts mentioned in history books, usualy edited for political purposes, which leave out more than they include, not the thoughts and logic behind them.
It is in fact a sad reflection of many Americans that know more about what the latest fashion is, and what celebrity did what than about how they got to where they are, and what makes them a free people.
 
No body except the very ignorant are confused about what the 2nd amendment or its framer's meant. It is just an inconvenient truth that does not fit their world view. The true believer antis are not stupid just sly and determined.
 
Here's some I've been compiling recently. Note that John Adams somewhat tempers Thomas Jefferson's blood of tyrants and patriots position.

Guncite has a good page with quotes and another good page identifying quotes that are falsely attributed to founding fathers.
http://www.guncite.com/

“Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. 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. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.” ---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

“One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.” –Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” –Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774_1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..."--George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)
 
Seems pretty obvious to me...its a right so its in the bill of rights. If not it would be in the art 14 of the constitution under powers of the state. States have powers not rights and only people have rights.
 
most Americans are not educated or grounded in reality about the past of America, the ideologies held by the founding fathers, or the sentiments in history

looks like we need to translate the writings of our founding fathers into Spanish. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top