Was there ANY Founding Father who did not own at least ONE firearm for personal use?

[bassjam]

...and not everyone lived in the city, either.

No, but aside from trappers and the natives I doubt many people relied primarily on hunting to feed themselves. Even the frontiersman living past the edge of "society" were almost always farmers who raised crops and had some livestock to feed themselves and their families who still made regular trips to whatever the nearest town was for supplies. A hunter/gather life takes up a lot of time.

Edit: Realistically a firearm was needed on the frontier for the same reasons a firearm is needed today: protection from 2 legged critters. Run-ins with the Indians was common, and after that good ol' fashioned bandits were a concern.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

...and not everyone lived in the city, either.

Of course not. I never suggested otherwise. I was just pointing out that your statement that people could not run down to the market during that time frame was not correct as markets existed inside of towns and cities to the point that the the colonies, later states, had an established meat export industry.

Take Ben Franklin, a noted Founding Father for example. He lived in the Philadelphia during this period. He didn't have the sprawling lands of Jefferson or Washington that were locally available. He did own land in Nova Scotia, however. Of course, Ben Franklin had no need for hunting for his food. He was a vegetarian. Not saying he didn't own guns, only that he didn't need guns to feed himself. Technically, he was a pescatarian, but not many people are hunting fish with guns.

 

[Pudge]

Okay, looks like we've got proof that Washington and Jefferson owned firearms (side note here, "arms" is a broader category than just those powered by combustion).

Does anyone have documentation about any other of the folks on the list? I certainly hope Lee owned a cannon or two.

Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton’s Guns Sell For $1.15 Million

The pistols, which the founding father carried while serving under George Washington during the Revolutionary War, are similar to the one Aaron Burr used to kill him in their tragic duel.

www.forbes.com

 

[Charlie98]

Edit: Realistically a firearm was needed on the frontier for the same reasons a firearm is needed today: protection from 2 legged critters.

And that's my point. A firearm was as much a necessity of life back then as a belt or suspenders to hold your drawers up. Whether it was always carried, or parked in a corner, I would be surprised if anyone back then didn't have a firearm of some sort.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

And that's my point. A firearm was as much a necessity of life back then as a belt or suspenders to hold your drawers up. Whether it was always carried, or parked in a corner, I would be surprised if anyone back then didn't have a firearm of some sort.

Then you would be very surprised.

First of all, you keep making fairly absolutist statements that are overly easy to refute by examples to the contrary. You would be surprised if ANYONE back then didn't have a firearm of some sort?

Okay, most women, slaves, and children did not own firearms back then, plain and simple. That rules out the notion of ANYONE not having a firearm of some sort.

Second, you can literally go through probate records and estate inventories and see where people did and did not own firearms. I have been going through a lot of the Colonial Williamsburg records and have yet to find in the inventory of a deceased woman a listing for a musket pistol, cannon, or other firearm. Some men didn't either. In the vast majority of records I have looked over, if there was a gun present in the estate, it was often just 1, but there were a few that had multiples and plenty that had no firearms what-so-ever.

Here is the Appraisment of the Estate of Willsby Jorden, deceased Nov 18th 1796. He was actually not too poor for the period, but wasn't a wealthy slave owner, either. No firearms listed in his estate. https://research.colonialwilliamsbu...x.cfm?doc=Probates\PB01199.xml&highlight=1797

2 Horses	£13..0..0
14 Head Cattle	36..15..0
2 Barrows and two Sow and Pigs	5..7..0
1 Stack Tops 20/ Snucks 6/ Blades 14/	2..0..0
2 Stacks Straw	..10..0
1 Horse Tumbler	2..10..0
6 fatted Hogs	9..0..0
2 Feather Beds	15..0..0
1 Loom two Chests and one Table	2..6..0
1 Safe Spinning Wheel and Cards	1..10..0
3 Chairs, parcel of pewter & Earthen Ware	1..8..0
1 Plow and Geer 1 Coffee Pot	1..1..0
2 Axes Hoes & old Iron	..12..0
1 Saddle and bridle 3/ Wood ware 5/	.. 8..0
4 Pot Duch Oven & Iron Pessel	..12..0
1 pr Box Irons & Heeters a Tray and Sifter	.. 5..6
1 Canoe & pr oyster Tongs	..13..0
Carpenters Tools Knives and Forks	.. 3..6
3 Barrells Corn @ 20/ pr Barrel	3..0..0
	£96..1..0

 

[Double Naught Spy]

John Adam's actually wrote the 2A before the Bill of Rights.

Amid new gun laws, here's the true story behind the 'Right to keep and to bear arms'

John Adams wrote the "right to keep and to bear arms" into the Massachusetts Constitution a decade before it appeared in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

www.foxnews.com

Here is the estate of founding father John Adams (not JQA as originally written, thank you orpington!). He was apparently quite wealthy. I don't see any firearms listed and the list is extensive, down to things like 1 pair spectacles. I could have missed it, but I don't see any listed.

Founders Online: John Adams, Inventory of Estate, 5 September 1826

John Adams, Inventory of Estate, 5 September 1826

founders.archives.gov

Payton Randolph was fairly well to do, owning some 27 slaves, but apparently no firearms. Interestingly he died during the Revolution which is when you might have expected to see that he owned firearms.

Inventory of estate of Peyton Randolph Esqr. 1776, July 15 | Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

 

[entropy]

Maybe they were smart enough to keep any guns off the books, and had prearrainged with the inheiritors thereof.
Apparently, Aaron Burr had a gun at some point....

 

[Mk-211]

I looked at a few, seems some owned firearms, some didn't.

Benjamin Franklin led troops, more then likely carried and used while serving.

Can't find anything about him owning firearms.

 

[buck460XVR]

I looked at a few, seems some owned firearms, some didn't.

Should it matter? I have quite a few friends who do not own a single firearm, yet they fully support my right to own as many as I want. While I don't see our founding fathers as having the ability to see into the future, like so many want us to believe, I do see them having the foresight, to see that owning firearms is a right that all American's should have, regardless of what the future may bring. I'd be surprised if any of them owned more than one or two tho........

 

[Mk-211]

Should it matter? I have quite a few friends who do not own a single firearm, yet they fully support my right to own as many as I want. While I don't see our founding fathers as having the ability to see into the future, like so many want us to believe, I do see them having the foresight, to see that owning firearms is a right that all American's should have, regardless of what the future may bring. I'd be surprised if any of them owned more than one or two tho........

Doesn't matter at all.

Politicians, media and other people inject their "feels" to influence people. A lot of people fall for the tricks these people play.

Look how easy it was to pass the patriot act after 9/11. All the fools they showed on TV, saying that they were willing to give up their rights, to protect America!

The .gov gave them more then they could ever wish for.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Should it matter? I have quite a few friends who do not own a single firearm, yet they fully support my right to own as many as I want. While I don't see our founding fathers as having the ability to see into the future, like so many want us to believe, I do see them having the foresight, to see that owning firearms is a right that all American's should have, regardless of what the future may bring. I'd be surprised if any of them owned more than one or two tho........

Should it matter? LOL. If the thread was about beliefs, then no, but the thread was about ownership. Also, there were statements made that people needed firearms to eat and surprise expressed if anyone didn't own a firearm. So, that aspect was addressed as well, again, has nothing to do with their beliefs.

John Adams may be your perfect colonial example like your friends, fully supportive, but not an owner, which is great, but ancillary to the question being asked.

However, then, just like now, there were folks that were fine with others having guns, but didn't own them themselves. I am sure there were probably people who didn't like firearms at the time as well.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Colonial Female owners of guns....I did find.

Estate of Mrs. Mary Steele

Inventory of estate of Mary Steel 1767, August 17 | Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

Elizabeth Baptist

Inventory of the estate of Elizabeth Baptist 1748 May 16 | Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

Rebecca Godwin

Estate of Rebecca Goodwin | Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

Elizabeth Balsom who had a gun, pistol and bayonet

Inventory of estate of Elizabeth Balsom 1776, October 21 | Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

There are more. These are some of the examples.

 

[buck460XVR]

Should it matter? LOL. If the thread was about beliefs, then no, but the thread was about ownership. Also, there were statements made that people needed firearms to eat and surprise expressed if anyone didn't own a firearm. So, that aspect was addressed as well, again, has nothing to do with their beliefs.

John Adams may be your perfect colonial example like your friends, fully supportive, but not an owner, which is great, but ancillary to the question being asked.

My response was not about beliefs, but about ownership. Tell me, why would it matter if at least one of the founding fathers did not own a gun? Why does it matter if Colonial woman owned guns, other than trivia? I alway find it interesting that some of those same founding fathers that helped write the preamble that stated.......

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

....owned slaves. Would be hard to ask which ones did or did not, without including beliefs.

JMTCs

 

[Bcwitt]

Washington sure did own guns. Jefferson??? Absolutely owned guns. Alexander Hamilton was in a duel.

 

[CapnMac]

Being "armed" was a thing. Now, gentlemen might carry a sword, or a dirk as likely as they might have a pistol.
Blades not needing a horn and pouch adding to their utility. Hence the phrase "That every man be armed."

 

[orpington]

Here is the estate of founding father John Quincy Adams. He was apparently quite wealthy. I don't see any firearms listed and the list is extensive, down to things like 1 pair spectacles. I could have missed it, but I don't see any listed.

Founders Online: John Adams, Inventory of Estate, 5 September 1826

John Adams, Inventory of Estate, 5 September 1826

founders.archives.gov

Payton Randolph was fairly well to do, owning some 27 slaves, but apparently no firearms. Interestingly he died during the Revolution which is when you might have expected to see that he owned firearms.

Inventory of estate of Peyton Randolph Esqr. 1776, July 15 | Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

That would be John Adams, John Quincy Adams was his son.

 

[goon]

Along with wills and estate records, we know that many men did show up for militia service during the F&I War without weapons. Many households would have had a gun, but maybe they didn’t have two guns in the household.

I think the gun community over-romanticizes guns and the founders. You don’t have to completely dive into the myth to support gun ownership now.

 

[rust collector]

This question may be intriguing, but the foundation documents are not affected by the habits of the drafters and implementers . Traveling down this road hints that the documents cannot stand by themselves, and that is not a helpful narrative for our purposes.

The best way to deal with guns then and now was/is to give or sell them before passing on. Guns have migrated from the estates of the deceased unannounced for at least a few hundred years.

 

[WestKentucky]

Just purely as an excercise of thought, imagine the level of industry needed to facilitate a gunsmiths shop. Iron, coal, brass, wood, gunpowder. Even if the gunsmith was nothing more than a basic blacksmith with a little abnormal ability. The industry of mining, refining, manufacturing and marketing the raw materials into the products needed to actually make a gun are not inconsequential. It would be an incredibly expensive tool for a British colonist in North America to aquire in any way outside of theft or service in the military, and military service would not make the firearms the property of the individual, it would only give them ready access to it for purposes of their profession.

Did it happen? Yes. Eventually. But when the colonists revolted against the crown there was a great shortage of arms needed to fight against the British regulars. The British regulars were tasked to maintain control of the colonies and one means by which they did that was to prevent stockpiling of military hardware. That’s actually what directly led to the first shots of the war for American independence when the British got word that unruly colonists were stockpiling weapons and the British seized those supplies and burned them. Colonists nearby saw the smoke and thought the Brit’s were burning the entire city in retaliation. So, small quantities of arms were permissible but quantities sufficient to mount any sort of organized mutiny were not thus any efforts to organize had to be clandestine and held very very close. Guns were expensive, were only permissible in small number, were under constant scrutiny by the occupying force of British military, and the means by which making more was an entire industrial complexity. I find it very likely that the founding fathers COULD afford guns and COULD have chosen to own them, but I also find it rather unlikely that they would have owned any significant number of arms because that would raise suspicion of the British and would have been a political and economical risk to the fortunes that they had worked for. Remember that the crown still appointed lords to oversee the colonies and you flat out did not cross those officials or your life and livelihood became much harder to maintain.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

That would be John Adams, John Quincy Adams was his son.

Very good catch! Reading through all of the names and dates gets overwhelming.

 

[tomrkba]

I wouldn't ride 2 miles alone unarmed in 1770.