The Historiography and Philosophy of the Right to Bear Arms

larkin

Ad Honorem
Sep 2009
3,698
#71
I am curious as well

When the topic of gun control comes up
2nd Amendment people seem to conveniently forget the term "well regulated"

I'd be vary interested to hear what their original thoughts were
I know the phrase, I have gone back to review the original copies to see if the text has been modified. Which is the intent, regulated or right?

My comment on the Second Amendment is by a life long “Lefty”
Keep in mind that I do not own a gun nor do I desire to own a gun.

I do however, defend the Second Amendment. You will note that the right to bear arms was close to the top. The reason was that in Europe the Crown had a monopoly on violence. Fearing revolution, the general public was not allowed to bare arms.

I believe that the right to bear arms is a check on government tyranny and it should stand even if it is only symbolic in the face of a heavily armed police force.

Police all over the country have been accepting generous gifts of ammunition and weaponry from the military. The puts a wedge between the communities they serve and aligns them with military, is this a good thing?

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Does a computer constitute papers and effects?
Seems like they've forgotten about this one too..
We could go down the list...
 

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
8,945
here
#72
I just came across this quote. I've never heard it before.

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government". - George Washington
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,340
#73
I just came across this quote. I've never heard it before.

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government". - George Washington
sounds wrong for the time. most likely bogus.
 
Jun 2015
5,580
UK
#75
I just came across this quote. I've never heard it before.

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government". - George Washington
Seems something he and his Founding brethren would have said, but then it's valid for their society, when the state and citizenry had the same level of weaponry. No US civilian has gunships, nukes, or heat-ray weapons. U.S. Military Heat Ray Weapon Unveiled

Nor can citizens tap internet and telecoms networks to see who posts what, or says what, or has top secret R&D or weapons silos/arsenals. All laws are based on situational contexts, the Founders themselves were wise enough to believe that.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,029
Spain
#76
I just came across this quote. I've never heard it before.

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government". - George Washington
Good in 1776..not so wise in 2016....
 

botully

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
3,454
Amelia, Virginia, USA
#78
It was important at that time. The US army was fledgling and small and riddled with all the problems that afflicted the European armies (desertion and drunkeness).

It had a two large European empires on either side and numbers of natives who were fighting against the seizure of the land. If weapons were restricted to just soldiers whole territories would be defenseless. Or a much larger army than the fledgling us could afford would be needed.
Whether or not there would be any sort of standing army at all was hotly debated. It wasn’t a matter of money, though the fledgling US couldn’t afford much of anything. The US ended up with a tiny one simply from need. Militia proved, over and over, to be next to useless in battle.
It was a deep fear of a standing army being used by the government against the citizens. Every time it is pointed out the the 2nd, in part, is meant as a check on tyranny, others point to the vast power the armed forces have and how easy it would’ve for the government to quash a rebellion, thus ironically proving the point. If the armed forces are ever turned on the people, then the Republic has fallen and all bets are off.
Those folks make me sad as well, as they seem to tacitly accept that they are subjects of a government who has the power to crush them. Our founders would weep.
 

Similar History Discussions