Source compilation question

[Aguila Blanca]

Looking at some discussions on other sites I have come to realize that many Americans even among the group that might generally be labeled as "conservative" and pro-Constitution don't seem to know what the Constitution says, or much of anything about other important historical documents like the militia acts (1792 or 1903), the NFA, the GCA of 1968, etcetera.

I'm contemplating pulling together either copies of as many of these (and more) documents as possible -- or just the text, if I can't find copies -- and reproducing the whole mess as a PDF collection or an e-book. I'd like to know if there's any interest in such a collection. Please let me know who thinks it's a good idea.

[shurshot]

Excellent idea AB! It would be nice to have that for reference.

[DaleA]

Good idea.
I hope you'll also include some of the quotes from the founding fathers that demonstrate that they really mean the ordinary citizen has the right to be armed.
Example:

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

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

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"- George Washington

I got these from the following web site and hope they are accurate.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/quotes.html

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Dale A

Good idea.
I hope you'll also include some of the quotes from the founding fathers that demonstrate that they really mean the ordinary citizen has the right to be armed.

Yes, my intention is to include a number of such quotations.

[44 AMP]

Quotes from the Founders, as found in the Federalist Papers , the Anti-Federalist papers and other period sources would be of worth.

Don't forget Tench Coxe, either.

[TunnelRat]

I don’t know that conservatives in general have any better understanding of the Constitution than liberals in general.

If you want to put something like that together I don’t think there’s any harm in it. The only question is how will the people find it. This is admittedly a very small corner of the internet. Is the idea that we as members could share it elsewhere and hopefully it would spread? In that case a file sharing site might be the best bet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jwamplerusa]

I recommend including Commentaries on the Constitution, by Judge Joseph Story.

"§1000. The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." §1001. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep, and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist, and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to cotempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights."

Judge Story was a fortune teller... 1833

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by DaleA

Good idea.
I hope you'll also include some of the quotes from the founding fathers that demonstrate that they really mean the ordinary citizen has the right to be armed.
Example:








I got these from the following web site and hope they are accurate.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/quotes.html

I’ll bet the money in my pockets that the people in favor of more gun control aren’t particularly concerned with what Alexander Hamilton and company said 200+ years ago (good musicals aside). He’s dead and was one voice of many and many more have come after. In the end the US Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Now certainly providing some idea of the intent behind that document is useful, but at some level it’s about who is appointed to the Court and their interpretation. D.C. vs Heller wasn’t close to unanimous (5 vs. 4) and shows how fragile this could all be many years down the line.

In defense of the people that do want more gun control, I don’t think the founding fathers ever expected us to have to live by their opinions for all time. That’s why Amendments are possible and slavery is no longer a legal institution. I think at some level we have to show for the need of the Second Amendment beyond just, “The founding fathers said so”. That gets into understanding why they made those quotes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[44 AMP]

I think at some level we have to show for the need of the Second Amendment beyond just, “The founding fathers said so”.

How about that the Supreme Court said so, fairly recently?

That our personal right to arms exists independent of militia service, and that the 2nd Amendment gives NOTHING to the citizen, it is a check on the power of government.

This has been, and no doubt will be abused in the future. That does not invalidate our rights in any way, shape, or form.

Right now, in one state I know, people are allowed to go to church (wearing masks) but the regulation forbids the congregation from SINGING.

Is that right? Is that Constitutional? I think its a violation, and hope that after the pandemic is declared over that those responsible for things like that get prosecuted and punished to the full extent possible.

Don't think all is lost because for a time, we get our rights stepped on. Things are only lost when we give up the fight for liberty.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

How about that the Supreme Court said so, fairly recently?

That our personal right to arms exists independent of militia service, and that the 2nd Amendment gives NOTHING to the citizen, it is a check on the power of government.

This has been, and no doubt will be abused in the future. That does not invalidate our rights in any way, shape, or form.

Right now, in one state I know, people are allowed to go to church (wearing masks) but the regulation forbids the congregation from SINGING.

Is that right? Is that Constitutional? I think its a violation, and hope that after the pandemic is declared over that those responsible for things like that get prosecuted and punished to the full extent possible.

Don't think all is lost because for a time, we get our rights stepped on. Things are only lost when we give up the fight for liberty.

Given that I brought up D.C. vs. Heller, chances are I’m pretty aware of that case.

As for thinking all is lost, I’m not sure how you got that from what I said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jwamplerusa]

Aguila Blanca,

I did quite a bit of research after Sandy hook. I decided quite some time ago the Republic was in jeopardy due to this Nation's failure to educate it's young on the ideals embodied in our Constitution. Feel free to use any of the below to aid you.

I had hoped if President Trump had earned a second term, he could be convinced to send a copy of the Constitution to every household. Too late for that now...

John Ordronaux, Constitutional Legislation In The United States: Its Origin, And Application To The Relative Powers Of Congress, And Of State Legislatures (1891) “This was recognized by the laws of the Plymouth Colony, which required that “each person for himself have piece, powder, and shot—viz., a sufficient musket or other serviceable piece for war, with bandeleroes, swords, and other appurtenances for himself, and each man-servant he kept able to bear arms.”


Federalist No. 28, sixth paragraph “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state.”


Federalist No. 46 “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.”


The Honorable St. George Tucker in his annotated edition of Blackstone, Constitutional Appendix stated "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer , or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house with out being subject to a penalty." (Ed. Emphasis added)


William Rawle’s 1825 A View of the Constitution of the United States of America had this to say in regard to the 2nd Amendment "The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if by any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. In most of the countries of Europe, this right does not seem to be denied, although it is allowed more or less sparingly, according to circumstances. In England, a country which boasts so much of its freedom, the right was secured to protestant subjects only, on the revolution of 1688; and it is cautiously described to be that of bearing arms for their defence, “suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.” An arbitrary code for the preservation of game in that country has long disgraced them. A very small proportion of the people being permitted to kill it, though for their own subsistence; a gun or other instrument, used for that purpose by an unqualified person, may be seized or forfeited. Blackstone, in whom we regret that we cannot always trace the expanded principles of rational liberty, observes however, on this subject, that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the people, is oftener meant than avowed, by makers of forest and game laws. This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused to the disturbance of the public peace."


Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story authored Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States in 1840, and provided this analysis of the 2nd Amendment. "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised that, among the American people, there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed, without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." (Ed. Emphasis added)

Best of luck with gaining the attention of a meaningful portion of our citizenry.

[Aguila Blanca]

Clarification -- although I thought I was clear in my original post:

I'm contemplating pulling together either copies of as many of these (and more) documents as possible -- or just the text, if I can't find copies -- and reproducing the whole mess as a PDF collection or an e-book.

I am not contemplating writing a book about the Constitution or the 2A. What I'm proposing is pulling together as many historical documents as possible in the direct lineage of the RKBA and making them available as a reference collection. There will probably be a brief discussion to introduce each document (maybe), but I'm not considering the inclusion of what individuals have written about the 2A after the Bill of Rights was adopted. (Somebody else can write or edit that book.)

[natman]

It's a good idea.

[Pistoler0]

I think its a great idea, Aguila.

<<I'm proposing [..] pulling together as many historical documents as possible in the direct lineage of the RKBA and making them available as a reference collection>>

This project would be useful not only for TFL members, but for the general public and for research into the topic.

If it includes proper references to original sources, it would be great for academic and legal research.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Pistoler0

If it includes proper references to original sources, it would be great for academic and legal research.

The intent is to reproduce the documents -- not a compilation of quotations about the documents. What do you mean by "proper references to original sources"? Each document IS an original source.

[44 AMP]

What do you mean by "proper references to original sources"? Each document IS an original source.

The only "proper reference to original sources" I can think of would be stating where you got your copy of the original document from...

Library of Congress catalog # would be one, I'd think.

[Crankylove]

I would be very interested in a collection like that

[Thomas Clarke]

I think this is an excellent idea. I look forward to augmenting what I already have.

[BJung]

I have only known that the 2A is a "Right". Most recently, I opened a book I've had titled The Second Amendment Primer by Les Adams and started reading it with my 12 year old before the schools and the media indoctrinate her with False Information. It's an easy read. What is most striking is that the 2A does not address a Right, as much as it addresses the dark side of human nature. Our Founding Fathers were very well educated and studied history. They understood the long-term benefit of tyrants oppressing people who were disarmed and the benefits of those people and nation that were. Liberals would argue that that is history. But look at Hitler. He came along after our Founding Fathers had long past. Look at current events and you'll agree that a decent, responsible populace would today - by culture and not law - stop the genocide and slavery.. that's going on today.

I'm a cultural conservative in many ways and define myself not as Republican but Anti-Democrat because of that Party's extreme views and false narrative and most recently, corruption. A forum discussion our Values and why we support the 2A here would be very helpful so we have a common understanding where most of us stand. What Liberals do not know is that overall, we shooters believe in Responsibility. It's at the range and for many learned from our fathers. I plan to study up on the 2A too and make a comic book of it for kids to read. Most spend less than a minute to read something so the book will fall within their attention span.

[Tom Servo]

From the original hearings on the drafting of the 2nd Amendment:

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.

We're obviously not talking about a "collective" right or the National Guard here.

Thomas Jefferson’s letter to John Cartwright, on June 5th, 1824:

the constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press. in the structure of our legislatures we think experience has proved the benefit of subjecting questions to two separate bodies of deliberants

Hamilton, in Federalist 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped