"Why do you need an AR15?"

[stanc]

Isn't the whole point of the 2nd Amendment, if the state is the enemy, as it was in 1776, you MUST bring your own weapon.

I don't see that written in the 2nd Amendment.

[montana]

1791.

THE RIGHT OF SELF-PROTECTION

The second principal reason that the intent of the framers of the Second Amendment is misunderstood in some quarters today, I think, is the failure to appreciate how vitally important to them was the right to possess arms, not only for service in the militia, but for self-protection.

To understand how the duty and right of self-protection were viewed by the Founding Fathers ― as well as the general population ― of the American Colonies in the late eighteenth century, it may be helpful to take a look at some of the realities of life at that time.

"Most Americans were accustomed to having their individual rights protected from violation from the government because approximately two-thirds of the population of the United States lived in states with constitutional bills of rights. In most of the other States some individual rights were protected in the state constitutions…. An armed populace was guaranteed in one way or another in every bill of rights of the original states [of those seven states ― Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Massachusetts (and later Vermont, after it was recognized as a separate state in 1791) ― that chose to draft one]. These provisions were the early progenitors of the Second Amendment, since it was the state bills of rights which were cited when the necessity of adding a bill of rights limiting the federal government was discussed later during the controversy over ratification of the United States Constitution."

Second, whether for frontier engagements with hostiles, for hunting, or for duty in the militia, practically the entire adult male population was armed. We know that many of the Founding Fathers, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and George Mason, were gun collectors. Many had served in armed combat during the Revolution and presumably had brought their weapons home upon the cessation of hostilities; a large number, of course, were hunters; and some were even marksmen. James Madison, for example, boasted that he could hit a small target at 100 yards...but he admitted that he was far from the best marksman.

Third, there were no police. just as in England at the time (which had no police force until 1829), America had no police during the colonial period (the first American police force was not organized until 1845). "Even then [in England and America] the police were forbidden arms, under the view that if these were needed they could call armed citizens to their aid." (Ironically, the only gun control in nineteenth century England was the policy of forbidding police to have arms while on duty.)

Fourth, Americans (and their English cousins) were keenly aware of what could befall an unarmed populace. The historical example probably most familiar to eighteenth-century Englishmen and Americans was the persecution that drove thousands of Huguenots to the shores of both countries.

"Among the numerous tribulations visited in the 1690s upon the [unarmed] Huguenots in order to compel them to convert [to Catholicism], the most atrocious – and effective ― were the dragonades, or billeting of dragoons on Huguenot families with encouragement to behave as viciously as they wished. Notoriously rough and undisciplined, the enlisted troops of the dragoons spread carnage, beating and robbing the householders, raping the women, smashing and wrecking and leaving filth…."

This Huguenot lesson was reinforced in the Colonies with the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military sent among them by the British during the decade of protest and turmoil that preceded the Revolution.

Papers throughout the Colonies began printing a regular series called the "Journal of Occurrences," which detailed outrages alleged to have been committed by British troops in Boston:

"Dec. 12, 1768. A Married Lady of this Town was the other Evening, when passing from one House to another, taken hold of by a Soldier; who other ways behaved to her with great rudeness…. Another Woman was pursued by a Soldier into a House near the North End, who dared to enter the same, and behave with great insolence…."

In fact, "throughout the eighteenth century, criminal offenses by English soldiers, sailors, and hired foreign mercenaries in the Colonies were a constant occurrence and a subject of constant antagonism between Americans and the English military, who refused to punish their men or to turn them over to local justice. As a result of these experiences, in the Anglo-American legal tradition, as the Founding Fathers understood it [even though there was no police force] the very idea of empowering government to place an armed force in constant watch over the populace was vehemently rejected as being a model of French Catholic despotism" .

Fifth, they had learned their law from the English common law, Particularly from the writings of one of their principal mentors, William Blackstone.

"[Blackstone] placed the right to arms among the ‘absolute rights of individuals at common law,’ those rights he saw as preserving to England its free government and to Englishmen their liberties. Yet, unquestionobly, what Blackstone was referring to was the individuals' rights to have and use arms for self-protection. He describes the right to bear arms as being ‘for self-preservation and defence,’ and self-defense as being ‘the primary law of nature [which cannot be taken away by the law of society] ― the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions, of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.’

"This background suggests why Blackstone saw political overtones in the right to arms, coupling his discussion of it to rights that are plainly political in nature. It helps to explain why in the Bill of Rights the right of arms [of the Second Amendment] is preceded by the rights of religion, expression, press and petition [of the First Amendment], then followed by the guarantee against quartering soldiers [of the Third Amendment], and then followed, in turn, by protection against unreasonable searches and seizures [of the Fourth Amendment]."

Consider how these first four amendments join together to form an umbrella of individual protection. "Not only are these rights phrased in substantially identical terms (the First, Second and Fourth Amendments all speak in terms of rights of 'the people'), but their roots [in the constitutional and common law of England], and the situations in which they were visualized as operating, are closely identified."

Thus we see that as a result of several powerful influences ― their Anglo-American philosophical heritage, their education in the English common law, and the impact of the realities of colonial life upon the daily conduct of their lives ― "[t]o the Founders and their intellectual progenitors, being prepared for self-defense was a moral imperative as well as a pragmatic necessity."

"In the tradition from which the Second Amendment derives it was not only the unquestioned right, but a crucial element in the moral character of every free man that he be armed and willing to defend his family and community against crime. This duty included both individual acts and joining with his fellows in hunting criminals down when the hue and cry went up, as well as the more formally organized posse comitatus [literally, the power or authority of the county] ― a body of persons summoned by the sheriff to assist in preserving the public peace.

And this leads, rather logically and naturally, I think, to the clear and unequivocal words of the Second Amendment. The Founding Fathers intended that the people possess a right to be armed for duty in the general militia, as well as a right to keep and bear arms for their self-protection. In other words, for their generation and all succeeding generations of free Americans, they intended that every man should be armed.

[stanc]

It is revealing that in the thousands of pages of proceedings that were published in the course of the debates that took place in the state and federal legislatures before the drafting of the bill of rights and throughout the ratification period, little mention is made of the individual right to keep and bear arms. This indicates, I think it is fair to say, that whatever their disagreements about the inclusion of a bill of rights in the Constitution, the Federalists and Anti-federalists were unanimous in their support of an individual right to keep and bear arms. They were also unanimous in assuming that "the right of the people to keep…arms" included the individual right to keep ordinary personal arms for armed self- and community-defense, especially against burglars, robbers, and rapists.

I think you are assuming something not supported by the evidence. (See below.)

This lack of understanding of the nature of the controversy between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists is one of the two principal reasons, I believe, why the proponents of gun control have reached the erroneous conclusion that the Second Amendment guarantees only a "collective right" or "states' right" to keep and bear arms.

Actually, there is good reason to conclude that the Second Amendment only guarantees the right (of state militias) to have arms for collective defense: It specifically addresses state security, but makes no mention of keeping and bearing arms for individual self defense.

States' RKBA that preceded the 2nd Amendment:

North Carolina (1776) "...the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State..."
Pennsylvania (1776) "...the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state..."
Virginia (1776) "...a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state..."
Vermont (1777) "...the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State..."
Massachusetts (1780) "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."

If the 2nd Amendment was meant to be an individual right, why did it not follow the example of the Pennsylvania and Vermont constitutions, and explicitly cite self defense as a reason, instead of only defense of the state?

Considering what the 2nd Amendment actually says, and taking it in context with the Militia Act of 1792, I have to agree with the following comment that I read elsewhere:
“It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.”

[montana]

If the 2nd Amendment was meant to be an individual right, why did it not follow the example of the Pennsylvania and Vermont constitutions, and explicitly cite self defense as a reason, instead of only defense of the state?

Considering what the 2nd Amendment actually says, and taking it in context with the Militia Act of 1792, I have to agree with the following comment that I read elsewhere:
“It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is called the Bill of rights, not The Bill of Powers. Are you saying the Bill of Rights are not individual rights? Individuals have rights, government has powers.

Your argument falls apart if the militia is other than individual citizens who make up the whole of the militia. I have described this in quite detail.

James Madison: “As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia.” (notes of debates in the 1787 Federal Convention)

George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They 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."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

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. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense 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 color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

[JASmith]

:confused: I just gave some.

No, the posts are almost all contrary arguments telling folks why we have no rights save those given by the government.

I have not yet seen a suggestion about what we can do except cower before an all-powerful government.

[stanc]

If the 2nd Amendment was meant to be an individual right, why did it not follow the example of the Pennsylvania and Vermont constitutions, and explicitly cite self defense as a reason, instead of only defense of the state?

Considering what the 2nd Amendment actually says, and taking it in context with the Militia Act of 1792, I have to agree with the following comment that I read elsewhere:
“It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is called the Bill of rights, not The Bill of Powers. Are you saying the Bill of Rights are not individual rights?

I'd say it is partly a Bill of Restrictions on the Federal Government, and partly a Bill of Individual Rights. But, I was discussing only the discrepancy in the 2nd Amendment noted above.

Individuals have rights, government has powers.

States apparently also have rights. https://constitution.laws.com/states-rights

And according to the 10th Amendment, the people have powers, too.

Your argument falls apart if the militia is other than individual citizens who make up the whole of the militia.

That makes no sense. Individual citizens make up the whole of any organization. Did you mean to say that the militia was (as per the Mason quote) the whole people? If so, there are some flaws with that idea.

The "whole people" make up the unorganized militia, which in reality is not actually a militia per se, but a reserve manpower pool. Since it is not required to conduct military training, and is not organized into operational units, it cannot be the "well regulated" (i.e., trained, disciplined, and organized) militia addressed in the 2nd Amendment.

[stanc]

No, the posts are almost all contrary arguments telling folks why we have no rights save those given by the government.

You are a bit off. What I actually said is that the government defines legal rights and privileges.

Driving is legally considered a privilege because the government says it is.

Free speech is legally considered a right because the government says it is.

[98Z]

New here,. but I've read this whole nightmare, all the way through. All I can say is this - The Supreme Court decided 10 years ago about this. RKBA is an Individual Right. Done.

Really, it's DONE. Stanc, are you saying that the Supreme Court is wrong?...

All I've seen from you this whole long thread, is how RKBA is NOT an individual right... Why are you arguing this, when it's already been decided?

Read 157 pages of this, so you can understand it. It's an individual right...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

"the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home,..."

[98Z]

I greatly thank the contributors of this thread, too - this has been one hell of a history lesson, resources quotes, and much detail. It was actually nice to read all this.

[grayfox]

Montana, great points and well said, we need you in Congress!!
It is not only true, but unfortunate that those who do not study history are doomed (and I stop the old phrase right there).
The bill of rights is for individual protection. A state does not really need to have a right of free speech if all citizens have it -- by default the state will in effect have it as well. A state does not practice a religion, and indeed the supremacy clause of the Constitution says that states are prohibited from restraining the free exercise thereof... And a state does not have a need to be secure in its person and effects, nor be compelled to testify against itself... this is my point, these are all individual rights, and the Constitution recognizes and enshrines them, so that no one would be able to set up a despotic, individual-trampling regime in this country, as had been set up and running in several European countries at that time, yes and was also running in the colonies under King George.

It was a novel concept embodied in the Constitution, that power did not emanate solely from the King and his government, but from the consent of the governed. Now proposing a federal government since the Articles of Federation were too weak and had failed, this new federal setup had to be stronger, yet had to have limitations placed upon it so it would not unilaterally take over and subjugate all the citizens... which is exactly what the socialists, lefties and libs seem to want to do today. Hmmmm, must be why they work so hard at eliminating individual rights. Remember Obummster said people should be willing to give up their rights to the Feds... let the Govt take care of you and define all the things that you get to "have" -- this "rights" thing was outmoded to him.

[montana]

I'd say it is partly a Bill of Restrictions on the Federal Government, and partly a Bill of Individual Rights. But, I was discussing only the discrepancy in the 2nd Amendment noted above.


States apparently also have rights. https://constitution.laws.com/states-rights

And according to the 10th Amendment, the people have powers, too.


That makes no sense. Individual citizens make up the whole of any organization. Did you mean to say that the militia was (as per the Mason quote) the whole people? If so, there are some flaws with that idea.

The "whole people" make up the unorganized militia, which in reality is not actually a militia per se, but a reserve manpower pool. Since it is not required to conduct military training, and is not organized into operational units, it cannot be the "well regulated" (i.e., trained, disciplined, and organized) militia addressed in the 2nd Amendment.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5][6] while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right, per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.



While both Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed ..."[9][10]

By January 1788, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Connecticut ratified the Constitution without insisting upon amendments. Several specific amendments were proposed, but were not adopted at the time the Constitution was ratified. For example, the Pennsylvania convention debated fifteen amendments, one of which concerned the right of the people to be armed, another with the militia. The Massachusetts convention also ratified the Constitution with an attached list of proposed amendments. In the end, the ratification convention was so evenly divided between those for and against the Constitution that the federalists agreed to amendments to assure ratification. Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:

Be never 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; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.[9]

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the scope of the Second Amendment's protections to the federal government.[11] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[12][13]

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[13] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[14][15] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against state and local governments.[16] In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".




According to the legal definition of the militia as set forth in the United States Code:

Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are —

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

[montana]

Well Regulated?

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

So, if something is “well regulated”, it is “regular” (a well regulated clock; regular as clockwork).

[stanc]

New here,. but I've read this whole nightmare, all the way through. All I can say is this - The Supreme Court decided 10 years ago about this. RKBA is an Individual Right. Done.

Really, it's DONE. Stanc, are you saying that the Supreme Court is wrong?...

All I've seen from you this whole long thread, is how RKBA is NOT an individual right...

Actually, what I said is the 2A does not explicitly say that the RKBA is for individual self defense. The 2A only addresses collective defense (i.e., having a militia for state security).

Contrast that to the Pennsylvania RKBA that preceded the 2A: "...the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state..."

"the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home,..."

That's nice. Now show me where it says anything remotely like that in the 2A.

P.S. The Supreme Court sometimes does get it wrong, and sometimes the ruling results from their political leanings. For an egregious example of both, see the Dred Scott decision.

[stanc]

Well Regulated?

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

So, if something is “well regulated”, it is “regular” (a well regulated clock; regular as clockwork).

In the military context, "well regulated" meant properly drilled, disciplined, and organized.

[montana]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtDAK7Umk7A

[98Z]

That's nice. Now show me where it says anything remotely like that in the 2A.

It's in that 157-page Supreme Court decision I linked for you. You can find it. It's in there.

[stanc]

It's in that 157-page Supreme Court decision I linked for you. You can find it. It's in there.

I didn't ask where that statement is located in the Supreme Court decision.

I asked you to show me where you see anything remotely resembling this...

the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home,...

...in the Second Amendment?

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.

Can't do it, can you, because it isn't there. The Second Amendment only addresses collective defense, like the RKBA of North Carolina, Virginia, and Massachusetts:

North Carolina (1776) "...the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State..."
Virginia (1776) "...a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state..."
Massachusetts (1780) "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."

If the Second Amendment was meant to also cover individual defense unrelated to militia service, it seems like it would've explicitly said so, like the RKBA of Pennsylvania and Vermont:

Pennsylvania (1776) "...the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state..."
Vermont (1777) "...the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State..."

[grayfox]

Somebody call me/wake me up when the arguing over minutiae is over and we get back to discussion with substance.

I've enjoyed the research by Montana, Bjornf16 etc, but quibbling over little details does not move me one way or the other.
Example: I don't personally care whether it was one guy, 2 guys or 15 that "wrote" or "authored" or whatever, the 2A, and I'm sure they didn't care either, what I do care about is that we have it, other countries do not but ought to have it, and I am glad for the Constitution. I took an oath (more than once) to support, uphold and defend it from all enemies foreign or domestic, and even though I am retired I still feel that way. Actually I think all you others on here do too. We don't all have to be in lock-step mind-meld to be on the same team.

Now I'm going to go out to the range and practice my 2A rights with an AR, and not because I think there's any militia calling in my immediate future!!! It is because I like to shoot and want to practice.

[JASmith]

You are a bit off. What I actually said is that the government defines legal rights and privileges.

Driving is legally considered a privilege because the government says it is.

Free speech is legally considered a right because the government says it is.

None of these statements suggest a path towards preserving or returning power to the people.

I rest my case . . .

[ricsmall]

Somebody call me/wake me up when the arguing over minutiae is over and we get back to discussion with substance.

I've enjoyed the research by Montana, Bjornf16 etc, but quibbling over little details does not move me one way or the other.
Example: I don't personally care whether it was one guy, 2 guys or 15 that "wrote" or "authored" or whatever, the 2A, and I'm sure they didn't care either, what I do care about is that we have it, other countries do not but ought to have it, and I am glad for the Constitution. I took an oath (more than once) to support, uphold and defend it from all enemies foreign or domestic, and even though I am retired I still feel that way. Actually I think all you others on here do too. We don't all have to be in lock-step mind-meld to be on the same team.

Now I'm going to go out to the range and practice my 2A rights with an AR, and not because I think there's any militia calling in my immediate future!!! It is because I like to shoot and want to practice.

^^Like button clicked^^. I read it all and with great interest in the actual quotes and facts. Opinions are like buttholes, everybody has one.... great discussion guys.