What DID the Founding Fathers really mean?

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

Ever since Lenin reduced the Russian population by means of starvation, socialists have known that they are better off controlling private production by means of regulation and fiat than outright ownership.

That form of Socialism, invented by Mussolini, is called Fascism. The classic definition of Socialism as defined by Marx (as the predecessor to and prerequisite for Communism) is the government owning the means of production. And that is the form of Socialism espoused by, for example, the Democratic Socialists of America.

But to get back on topic, the Founding Fathers absolutely intended the people to have the same sort of arms a typical soldier would carry. They would be shocked by the restrictions government imposes today IMHO.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Armed Chicagoan

That form of Socialism, invented by Mussolini, is called Fascism. The classic definition of Socialism as defined by Marx (as the predecessor to and prerequisite for Communism) is the government owning the means of production. And that is the form of Socialism espoused by, for example, the Democratic Socialists of America.

The problem with a purely prescriptive notion of socialism as described by Marx, is that it leaves you with an idea as poorly defined as his other ideas and only vaguely related to socialist practice. Marx didn't understand economics or people all that well, and he wasn't in a position to accurately describe a movement that became important after he died.

A descriptive definition of socialism will incorporate the practice and ideas of socialists. The modern problem with the prescriptive definition of socialism as government means of production is that it is employed by socialists to sidestep the provenance of their policies. In practice, this means that some in politics will deny being socialists while advocating the policy of socialist parties.

There is a neat article by Mack Tanner on what fascism actually means now, if anything. https://snomhf.exofire.net/politics/fascistEpithet.html

[MTT TL]

But to get back on topic, the Founding Fathers absolutely intended the people to have the same sort of arms a typical soldier would carry.

More than that, going back to the OP, the Militia Act of 1792 REQUIRED every able bodied man to purchase and own a rifle suitable for use in combat. It had to be registered as well, to show on paper that the person had such a suitable arm.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

More than that, going back to the OP, the Militia Act of 1792 REQUIRED every able bodied man to purchase and own a rifle suitable for use in combat. It had to be registered as well, to show on paper that the person had such a suitable arm.

Correct.

Further, even if the individual owed money, his militia rifle could not be taken from him.

... and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

https://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

[MTT TL]

To put it in to context though the founding fathers were very much opposed to standing armies and state military power at all. They recognized it as a tool of oppression, not just domestically but also against other countries. If you think they would be shocked at our gun laws that is nothing compared to how they would see the modern US military and all the things our government does with it.

Having a militia would allow for defense of the homeland and little else. This proved to have some serious problems by 1801 when the Barbary War kicked off, followed by the War of 1812 and the Second Barbary War. These experiences altered the outlook of the founders when faced with real life problems they had to solve. Particularly Jefferson and Madison.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Armed_Chicagoan

No, those are social welfare programs, not Socialism. Socialism is when the government owns the means of production. If the government confiscates US Steel from the shareholders and nationalizes it, that's Socialism. Providing for social welfare and infrastructure is not Socialism.

Correct and the various positions by some Dems are not 'socialism' either..these 'socialist' comments are buttons, sound bites..was my point.

Bernie Sanders describes himself as a socialist, yet he allows for privately owned manufacturing

No, he describes himself as a "democratic socialist"..I'm talking about the oft repeated claim that the dems are 'socialists', they are not..they are in the vain of others who favor public support for those who are less fortunate.

but I don't think the founding fathers envisioned today's democrat/socialist party

[American Man]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Correct and the various positions by some Dems are not 'socialism' either..these 'socialist' comments are buttons, sound bites..was my point.


No, he describes himself as a "democratic socialist"..I'm talking about the oft repeated claim that the dems are 'socialists', they are not..they are in the vain of others who favor public support for those who are less fortunate.

Yeah, you're right... these candidates are going all out with their campaigns promoting American values... confiscating guns... First and most important step. Increased taxes at any cost under the guise of any lie. Take over of healthcare that will also take care of illegal immigrants... in no way trying to incentivize illegals to illegally vote huh? Ending fossil fuels... as Obama's draconian regulations were on the road to accomplishing in many states...

Yeah, I'm just using the term Democrats/Socialist Party because I have no idea of what I'm talking about.

You ever notice how socialists/communists use Resources as a Weapon against their citizenry? Do Republicans ever concoct these strategies? Try to stay the past 100 years with your coming awe inspiring response. There is only one party that wants to see any prosperity among the USA as a whole and only one that wants to make it's citizens subjects and dependent on them. And when they are dependent, they will make use of their weapons. If you don't see the agenda of this democrat/socialist party and how they are aligned with the infamous communist/socialist governments of the past, then you have your head in the sand. At least I learn something from the people posting in response to you... you should try it too.

[Aguila Blanca]

The rules for TFL preclude discussions of political topics. Posts here, with limited exceptions, must be firearms-related. The question posed in the opening post of this discussion was firearms-related:

I ask for assistance on historical documentation from our Founding Fathers. What did they envision for our Right to bear arms? The Militia Act of 1792 is as good as I can find.

We are drifting rather far afield. I suggest the discussion return to the original question or this thread will have to be closed.

[zukiphile]

Edit - Fair enough.

[44 AMP]

I ask for assistance on historical documentation from our Founding Fathers. What did they envision for our Right to bear arms? The Militia Act of 1792 is as good as I can find.

As already mentioned, you need to look at the Federalist Papers, and for balance, the Anti-Federalist Papers as well.

It is in these collections you will find the arguments and trains of thought concerning what our government should, and should not be, and what our rights are, and aren't, vs. the government.

You won't find much case law or court rulings from the early days of our Republic concerning firearms rights, as in that era our new government rarely infringed on those rights, so very few, if any cases about them went to court to become precedent.

A lot has changed since then, but it seems fairly clear to me, and a lot of the rest of us that the Founders felt the government should not infringe on citizens possessing (keep and bear) military grade weapons.

Applying current "moral" values to past era's actions is one of the classic mistakes people make when looking at history. If you face someone who claims that the Founders couldn't have foreseen "modern assault weapons", and implies that IF they HAD, they would have banned them is a leap of faith, not supported by any evidence anyone has ever presented.

In fact, there is some evidence (the Militia act) that if the Founders HAD foreseen modern assault weapons, they would have REQUIRED citizens to own them!!

Toss that back at the person who claims we should not have them because the Founders couldn't have imagined them. Boldly agree with them, that yes, the founders didn't imagine them, and state, but if they had, they would have required us to have them!! Challenge them to prove otherwise!!

They can't, but it may shut them up and make them go away for a while as they look for proof of their position...

[PolarFBear]

Thanks to all that have posted. The Militia Act of 1792 was sufficient to cause a "no reply" by my young left wing snowflake. I learned a lot, perhaps they did as well.

[Aguila Blanca]

It may be worth commenting, by way of reinforcement, that the requirement in the Militia Act of 1792 for registering one's militia rifle was clearly (in context) NOT to make it easier for the government to subsequently find all the rifles and confiscate them, but to ensure that every man actually had such a rifle, and so the local militia commander(s) had an accurate count of how many riflemen they would have available if their unit was called to serve.

[sundog]

And does anyone know if those arms 'registered' for militia service had serial numbers? I suspect not. There should be plenty of historical examples.

Or was the the 'registration' done such as an entry in the militia record that 'John Smith' appeared at Church, Sunday last, with prescribed musket, powder, and ball.

[mehavey]

See this for a reasonable early serial number view:
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.ph...irearms.29528/

See also this for some perspective:
https://time.com/5169210/us-gun-cont...tory-timeline/

Meanwhile.... this kind of CommonSenseSolution logic ought to give you pause:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...d-liberty.html

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by mehavey

Meanwhile.... this kind of CommonSenseSolution logic ought to give you pause:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...d-liberty.html

Under such a two-guns-per-person law, would anyone be prevented from owning a firearm to defend themselves in their home? Clearly not. Whether or not you agree with this idea, it’s plainly correct that neither the Second Amendment nor any other part of the Constitution stands in the way of policy proposals like this one.

Except for that pesky "... shall not be infringed" part (which the author has already cavalierly written off by the time we get to the part cited above).

[jwamplerusa]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

It's factually false in that there were complex and expensive multishot arms of which that generation were aware. Someone posted about it here within the last month, with pictures iirc, but I can't locate the post.



How exactly did we kill Indians, bears and Canadians if all our rifles were kept in our homes?

I have a radical method for decoding the secret meaning of constitutional language. I read it.



Emphasis added.

That's peculiar wording if they meant arms needed to be left at home.

This!

When faced with such comments, I've stopped pretending I can "win the argument". I've realized that with many that start this type of discussion they are ignorant of our nation's founding principles.

I first ask if they have read the Constitution. I've not had a one that did more than equivocate.

I usually cut off their stammer and simply challenge them to read the Constitution, all of it, including the amendments and the preambles. I then suggest that when they are done they go back and find all the places the phrase "the right of the people" appears in the Constitution. I then suggest they go back and read the preamble to the Bill of Rights, and consider that if they don't respect one of those Rights I care about there is no reason for me to care about ones they might care about.

I usually offer to direct them to other references such as Commentaries on the Constitution. None have taken me up on the challenge.

I then suggest that being an American was never about where you were born or to what group you belonged. I usually finish with something along the lines of - if you can't support the Constitution, all of it, the parts you like and the ones you don't there is a simple solution. Go to State.gov and download a DS-4080 form and execute it.

[Prof Young]

I think the framers of the constitution saw it as a living document based on some absolute principals. They never intended for the freedom of speech to apply only to the channels of communication available to them. They didn't foresee electronic media, but clearly intended for the freedom of speech to extend that far and beyond.

So too the second amendment.

Life is good.

Prof Young

[davidsog]

I think the framers of the constitution saw it as a living document based on some absolute principals.

It is and they even included a means to change it!!!

It is called an AMENDMENT.

It is sure as heck isn't some arbitrary and capricious interpretation out of Los Angeles or New York born out of a Starbucks safe zone.

[mehavey]

Ahem.... I believe Prof Young was making the case that normal technical progress was covered -- and protected -- under the underlying core principles.

[davidsog]

Ahem.... I believe Prof Young was making the case that normal technical progress was covered -- and protected -- under the underlying core principles.

Ahem......

I got that. What is unclear to you in what I wrote?

[Mongo_Bongo]

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the government did not have sole access to the means of coercive force. This is not a difficult concept.

[Geezerbiker]

The Unorganized Militia Act (sorry I don't remember when it was passed but my best reelection was around the time most of the framers of the constitution was still around) says that every member of the unorganized militia is required to have a firearm of the current military type. This makes me think they knew firearms technology was going to advance and the common man shouldn't be left behind...

Tony

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Geezerbiker

The Unorganized Militia Act (sorry I don't remember when it was passed but my best reelection was around the time most of the framers of the constitution was still around) says that every member of the unorganized militia is required to have a firearm of the current military type. This makes me think they knew firearms technology was going to advance and the common man shouldn't be left behind...

I posted a link to the Militia Act of 1792 in post #29. The original Militia Act did not make any reference to an "unorganized" militia -- back then, the militias were all organized. The reference to the unorganized militia is found in the current Militia Act of 1903, which provides that the organized militia is the National Guard and the Naval Militia, and the unorganized militia is all other able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45.

https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-1...-sect-311.html

[sirgilligan]

The Federalist No. 29 is my personal favorite.
Remember, well regulated means in good working order, not controlled by the government. A well regulated machine is a machine that is tuned properly and working.

This is important, it shows the the government understands the meaning and roll of the 2nd Amendment.

https://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf


Following are a few excerpts from "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms", Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution. United States 97th Congress. The purpose of the subcommittee was to document the real intent of the founding fathers and framers of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and to put to rest those that want to introduce vague speculation as to meanings of words, commas, and such.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole
body of the people always possess arms, and be taught
alike, especially when young, how to use them."
(Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the
Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of
Independence, and member of the first Senate, which
passed the Bill of Rights.)

"The great object is that every man be armed ...
Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry,
in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the
Constitution.)

"The advantage of being armed ... the Americans
possess over the people of all other nations ...
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." (James
Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his
Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"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." (Second
Amendment to the Constitution.)

Samuel Adams, a handgun owner
who pressed for an amendment stating that the "Constitution shall never
be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are
peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms"

[The proposed 2nd Ammendment] finally passed the House in its present form:
"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." In
this form it was submitted into the Senate, which passed it the
following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the
right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an
amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to
bearing "For the common defense".

Joseph Story in his "Commentaries on the Constitution" considered the right to
keep and bear arms as "the palladium of the liberties of the republic",
which deterred tyranny and enabled the citizenry at large to overthrow
it should it come to pass.

In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined "militia of the
United States" to include almost every free adult male in the United
States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a firearm and a
minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment...
There can be little doubt from this
that when the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had
reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of
bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called
the National Guard. The purpose was to create an armed citizenry, which
the political theorists at the time considered essential to ward off
tyranny. From this militia, appropriate measures might create a "well
regulated militia" of individuals trained in their duties and
responsibilities as citizens and owners of firearms.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by sirgilligan

Following are a few excerpts from "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms", Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution. United States 97th Congress. The purpose of the subcommittee was to document the real intent of the founding fathers and framers of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and to put to rest those that want to introduce vague speculation as to meanings of words, commas, and such.

Link to the full report:

https://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba82.pdf

I strongly advise anyone who finds this report interesting to make a copy of it. In the 37 years since it first came out it has appeared on various .gov web sites, then disappeared, reappeared elsewhere, then disappeared again. The link I have is to a copy hosted by The Constitution Society. We can hope that they will preserve it, but the report doesn't fit the current narrative, so nothing is certain. Download it and save your own copy to be sure you'll have it if you need to cite it.

The same applies to the 2004 Department of Justice report on the Second Amendment:

https://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...v028-p0126.pdf

This report, too, has been posted on various .gov web sites, then disappeared, then reappeared, and then disappeared again. For the moment, it's up again. Under the Obama administration, it couldn't be found. Save a copy.