See attached for a reference to these 15 individuals:
en.m.wikipedia.org
These being:
Founding Fathers of the United States - Wikipedia
These being:
Was there ANY Founding Father who did not own at least ONE firearm for personal use?
- Thread starter orpington
- Start date
Mauser lover
Member
They were more likely to not own a toothbrush than a firearm. How on earth would you prove this?
D.B. Cooper
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2016
- Messages
- 4,396
Look at the last will and testament for each man listed. There would be a section of tangible property to be disposed of. If there are fireamrs on the list, there's your proff. (It doesn't prove said man ever used said firearms.) Also, diary/journal entries of said founding father and those of his contemporaries, which may mention the possession or use of a firearm (on a hunting trip for example.) lastly, local store records that may show purchase or delivery of a fireamr to said founding father.
Charlie98
Member
I find that an interesting question... in the era of when the Constitution was written, if you wanted to eat, you needed a firearm... let alone defense. It wasn't like they could run down to the A&P and pick up some steaks....
AlexanderA
Member
You have to assume that wealthy gentlemen of the 18th century (which is what they were) would own firearms.
Not necessarily. A lot of the game in settled areas had been hunted out, and a lot of the arable land was under cultivation. Market hunters did go out on the fringes and bring meat in for sale. Definitely, some people still did own guns and hunt. But you’d just as likely eat food that was raised or that came from the sea. One entry I remember from Pennsylvania Gazette from the 1750’s mentioned some unrest, and people from the outlying settlements fleeing back to Philly, with no guns or locking doors around for miles.
D.B. Cooper
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2016
- Messages
- 4,396
That would have been the opening of the French & Indian War, specifically, Penn's Creek Massacre, in 1754, or just as likely, Braddock's defeat and subsequent retreat of George Washington in 1755.
To answer the earlier question of "how would you prove that?", the wikipedia entry on Penn's Creek Massacre states that "... Franklin himself helped to organize and train the first Pennsylvania regiments." This would indirectly indicate that Franklin was at least familiar with firearms and basic military drill-as would be expected for service in the militia.
I dislike citing wikipedia, and that particular claim is not cited in the entry, so take it with a gran of salt, however, the same entry further mentions your assertion of...
and does cite a 2019 journal article. One must consider that, at the time, PA was still largely populated by Quakers (pacifists), so it would be reasonable to expect significant numbers of them to be totally unarmed. (William Penn Jr, founder of PA colony, himself struggled with the idea of carrying a sword, a badge of his aristocratic station in England, after his conversion to Quakerism.
All that is to say, I think we have proven that at least one founding father from the list above owned or was at least familiar with firearms.
I believe it was around 1754, but it’s been about fifteen years since I read that. I used to have a lot of interest in the Seven Years War, and spent some time in libraries looking up primary sources. I still have a copy of Crucible of War and a copy of Of Sorts for Provincials around somewhere.
I would not be surprised if Franklin and the others that didn't own farms and lived solely in town did not.
Not all of them were planters on an estate and they weren't buckskin wearing frontiersmen.
Not all of them were planters on an estate and they weren't buckskin wearing frontiersmen.
This would be hard to prove either way. But I'd not be surprised to find out that several of them did not. Our opinions on such things are clouded by years of watching movies and most of them center around incidents involving firearms. But in reality, there were fewer guns owned than we think.
Mauser lover
Member
Oops. I was unclear. I know there are several ways to prove that someone owned firearms. How would you prove that they did not own firearms? Wills and journals might not mention something that really was present. I suppose if we look at the wills of every individual on the list, and they all mention a firearm, the question will be answered. That is, however, more work than I have time for at the moment.
In Philosophy, it is notoriously difficult to prove a negative like this. The only thing we would have is an argument from silence unless someone else comes up with some way of doing this.
Proving a negative without a personal statement from an individual is famously difficult.
I brought this topic up simply because, with all the challenges to the Second Amendment in this day and age, if ALL of the Founding Fathers owned firearms, then it was probably the intent that all of the citizenry be allowed to, as well.
Or perhaps not. Maybe reserved for the aristocracy or elite, call it what you will.
At least an interesting topic for debate, philosophically.
Or perhaps not. Maybe reserved for the aristocracy or elite, call it what you will.
At least an interesting topic for debate, philosophically.
George Washington had a few.
www.americanrifleman.org
An Official Journal Of The NRA | George Washington's Guns
February 22, 2022, marks George Washington’s 290th birthday, and nearly three centuries on, there are still many surviving artifacts that give us some insight into his life and character.
John Adam's actually wrote the 2A before the Bill of Rights.
www.foxnews.com
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.
AlexanderA
Member
Personal ownership of firearms (except by slaves) simply wasn't controversial in America, in1791. Our modern debate about guns would have left the Founders scratching their heads in bewilderment. Therefore, if that's all there was to it, an Amendment would not have been necessary.
No, the 2nd Amendment is about a civic right, harking back to the attempted British seizure of the colonists' stored powder and cannon in their armory in Concord, Massachusetts. The Founders didn't want a repeat of that incident under the newly-formed federal government.
And, since the Founders considered the militia to be made up of practically everybody, it would follow that practically everybody would have the right to keep military arms.
I may not grow broccoli or even eat it, but I can support others gardening and growing broccoli and even eating. ;-)
All of the authors and signers of the BOR supported the 1st, but not all were religious, but they all supported that freedom from government interference. All of them supporting the 2nd doesn't mean they all had to own a gun nor did it mean "The People" were limited in that and other rights. They recognized the right and prohibited government from infringing on it.
Last edited:
D.B. Cooper
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2016
- Messages
- 4,396
The way in which you refer to it, The Seven Years' War, indicates you'e studied the war from the European perspective. I've never seen it taught as anything other than the French & Indian War in an American university or classroom. I have seen it taught as Le Guerre de Suavage (war of the savages) in the Canadian perspective. (But "suavage" doesn't carry the same negative connotation in French that "savage" does in English.
Perspectives change things. As someone mentioned, firearms were not controversial in the US at the founding, and probably were not controversial in Canada, either, although they have become so. I suspect they were controversial in Europe, even at the time of the The French & Indian War.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
You do realize that when the Constitution was written, we had cities, towns, markets, newspapers, blacksmiths, government, etc. Not everyone lived in the rural country or was self sufficient. Many people most certainly did go to the market for their food. There was industry and specialization in the colonies well before the Constitution was written.
In colonial Williamsburg, for example, they processed beef, pork, mutton, etc. and exported it, even.
Here is a fine quote...
"Unless they also farmed their own land or had enough space for a kitchen garden and a few livestock, it [the market] was virtually their only source of food.
Not everyone needed a firearm to eat, plain and simple.
Mauser lover
Member
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.
Does anyone have documentation about any other of the folks on the list? I certainly hope Lee owned a cannon or two.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,202
How could you prove you didn't own any firearms? Probably why we are innocent until proven guilty. Shifting the burden.
I could easily prove I owned something, its would be much more difficult to prove that I don't or never have.
Charlie98
Member
...and not everyone lived in the city, either.
I just decided after studying it that the F&I War was a very historically significant event. It was a global conflict at the time that involved the two most powerful empires of the era, and it set the conditions for the American Revolution. I started calling it the Seven Years War after I studied it more. It gets completely mishandled in American education, if it’s even covered at all.
Similar threads
- Locked