Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Twin Peaks of the Second Amendment

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In the wake of another senseless shooting yesterday we can expect progressive attacks on our Second Amendment freedom to become even more shrill and frenetic.  That is why now is a good time to go back to basics.  In this essay I will explain the history and theoretical underpinnings of the Second Amendment and discuss why it continues to be vitally important in both of its functions – ensuring the right of law abiding citizens to defend against both private violence and public violence. 

The Theoretical Underpinnings of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The United States Supreme Court has held the right to keep and bear arms [“RKBA”] is “among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.”  McDonald v. City of Chicago.1 No one should be surprised by this holding because the RKBA is deeply rooted in our history, not just as Americans but as heirs to the English common law tradition. 

The first thing and most basic thing one needs to understand about the RKBA is that the right is codified in, not granted by, the Constitution.  The Supreme Court put it this way nearly 150 years ago:  “This is not a right granted by the Constitution.  Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”2  In 1689, William and Mary enacted a statute3 in the wake of the Glorious Revolution that is generally considered to be the predecessor of the right that was codified in the Second Amendment over 100 years later.4  William Blackstone’s famous commentaries on the common law greatly influenced the founding generation.  Blackstone summed up all human rights within three primary rights – the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and right of private property.5  In addition to these three primary rights, he listed five auxiliary rights that serve as “barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights.” The RKBA is one of these auxiliary rights.   According to Blackstone, the RKBA has two independent aspects:  (1) “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation;” and (2) “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.”  Thus, by the time of the American founding, the right was understood to protect against both public and private violence. 

The first aspect of the right – the right to resist a tyrannical government – was the primary impetus behind the Second Amendment.  After all, the Revolutionary War was ignited at Lexington and Concord when the colonists resisted a governmental attempt to seize their arms.  The militia clauses of the original 1789 Constitution giving Congress the power to organize, discipline and call forth the militias were highly controversial, because the anti-federalists feared that these powers could lead to the derogation of the RKBA by the federal government.  The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to address these objections. 

In the years following the Revolution and the Constitutional Convention, the “check on government power” aspect of the right continued to receive prominence of place.  St. George Tucker was an influential constitutional scholar in the founding period, and he described the right as “the true palladium of liberty.”6  Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, echoing Tucker, wrote in his commentaries:  “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.”7

By the 1850’s, the fear that the federal government would disarm the universal militia that had prompted the founders to include the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights had largely faded as a popular concern.8  And the second aspect of the right – the right to personal self-defense – had become more prominent in the public’s mind.  Nevertheless, both grounds for the right – what I have called the “twin peaks of the Second Amendment” – continued to provide the theoretical foundation of the right.  In the next two sections I will discuss why both of these peaks continue to be vitally important for ordered liberty in these troubled times.

The Right to Defense Against Private Violence

A few years, ago my wife and I adopted three precious, beautiful children, ages 3, 5 and 7.  Sadly, not long after the kids came to live with us, we received what we believed to be credible information that the biological father was telling people he was making plans to invade our home, kill us, and kidnap the children.  Naturally, when we heard this, we immediately contacted the police and an officer came to our house to meet with us.  I doubt I will ever forget that conversation.  The officer politely listened to our concerns and commiserated with us as we told our story.  And then he said “Well, if he attacks you give us a call and we will get here as soon as we can.”  Have you ever heard the old saw, “when you need the cops in seconds, they are only minutes away”?  My wife and I sat there across our kitchen table from the officer and came to grips with the reality underlying that old saw.  Don’t get me wrong.  I am not criticizing the officer who sat with us, and in retrospect, I should not have been surprised.  Criminals have this advantage over the police:  They pick the time and place of their crimes.  What was he going to do, promise us that he would have a unit parked in our driveway 24/7 from then on?  Of course not.  The cops cannot be everywhere, and it follows that their role is almost always reactive and not preventative. 

My wife and I took our safety into our own hands.  We upgraded our alarm system and installed a security door.  And I made an appointment with a dear friend, an ex-Navy SEAL, who gave me a course in combat shotgun.  And from that time on I slept with that shotgun nearby.  Many nights I laid in bed wondering if this was the night when we would hear a crashing door or a breaking window, the dogs would bark, the alarms would scream, and I would face the test of whether I would be able to put another man down.  My SEAL friend told me to have a specific plan and to visualize implementing that plan over and over.  My wife and I physically practiced our roles in the plan, and countless times I laid there staring at the ceiling as I pictured hearing the crash, grabbing my weapon, racking the slide, and running to meet our attacker in what would surely be a deadly encounter. 

This season of our life came to an end a few nights ago when this man died in a violent encounter with the police.  The next day I marked the occasion by putting my shotgun in the gun safe for the first time in a very long while. 

Here is where the RKBA comes in.  This man was a career criminal who had been to prison several times.  It was illegal for him to possess a firearm.  Yet he had one in his hand when he died.  This may come as a shock to you, but criminals don’t follow the law.  That’s right.  Criminals are infamous for ignoring pesky statutes they find inconvenient, such as the statute that prohibits criminals from possessing guns.  Another old saw:  “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.”  Trite?  Yes.  True?  Also yes. 

There are over 300 million firearms in this country – we have more guns than people.  Any attempt to confiscate all of those guns would be not only unconstitutional, but also wildly futile.  That is why one basic, indisputable fact should always underlie every discussion about the right to private defense:  Bad men will always find a way to get a gun.  Two more facts follow from this one: (1) The police will candidly admit that they usually cannot prevent bad men from attacking good people.  (2) Therefore, law abiding citizens must be free to defend themselves with equal if not superior firepower to that employed against them. 

My wife and I have lived as if under the Sword of Damocles.  She was especially vulnerable, and can tell you how it feels to have a stab of fear in your heart every time an unfamiliar car passes by.  We hoped the day would never come and thankfully it did not.  But we had to prepare to defend ourselves and our precious children.  Her .38 special and my 12-gauge pump action were crucial to that preparation.  Gun control fanatics imagine a utopia where such preparation is never necessary.  They have deluded themselves and would delude the rest of us too.  We must live, not ignore, harsh realities, including the harsh reality that bad men will always find a way to arm themselves.  We must resist the progressives’ efforts to disarm us and render us defenseless.  Never forget that the Greek roots of “utopia” literally mean “no place.”

The Right to Defense Against Public Violence

Two of the stupidest comments I hear from gun control fanatics are “You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt!” and “the Second Amendment does not protect weapons of war!”  God help us.  The sheer breadth and depth of the historical ignorance that underlies these statements beggars belief. 

The Second Amendment states: “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.”

What in God’s name do these fanatics think a militia does?  That’s right.  It fights wars.  As we saw above, the RKBA ensures the right of the people to defend against both private violence and public violence.  Only an idiot believes the Second Amendment was a sop the Founders extended to duck hunters to get them to vote to ratify the Constitution. 

But surely, we are far past the time when we need to worry about public violence, aren’t we?  No, we are not. 

A few years ago I had a gun control debate with a friend (we will call him “Tony”) who was a citizen of Hong Kong.  There was a mass shooting here, and Tony took to Facebook to bemoan gun violence in the United States and compare us unfavorably to peaceful Hong Kong.  In my response I acknowledged that mass shootings are indeed a terrible thing and a few thousand people had indeed died in such incidents in the last 50 years.  But then I tried to put that statistic into perspective, and I asked my friend “What did Mao call a few thousand deaths?”  Answer:  “Tuesday afternoon.”  Mao famously said  that “power grows out of the barrel of a gun,” and in his China, the government had a monopoly on guns.  He used that monopoly to perpetrate 65 million murders.  That’s right, I said, within living memory your government used its gun monopoly to accomplish the ruthless murder of tens of millions.  Maybe governments should not have a monopoly on guns.

Tony was unimpressed with my arguments and eventually unfriended me.  Xi’s government stands in direct linear descent from Mao’s government, and in recent months we have watched in horror as China brutally stomped out the last vestiges of freedom the British common law system had bequeathed to Hong Kong.  As I watch those reports, I sometimes wondered if Tony ever thought back on our exchange.  Has he reconsidered whether it would have been a good thing for the freedom loving citizens of Hong Kong to have the means to resist Xi’s brutality by force of arms?

But that can never happen in the United States Barry.  Why do you say that?  Are American politicians so much purer of heart than Chinese politicians?  Does their lust for power not burn as hotly as their Chinese counterparts?  Do you really think that a wild-eyed progressive fanatic like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would not impose her utopian visions on the American people by force of arms if she thought she had half a chance? 

I will grant you this.  Maoist style authoritarianism is unlikely to occur in the United States.  But this is not because our politicians are better than theirs.  It is because our politicians have a healthy fear of a well-armed citizenry and know there are limits beyond which they dare not push us.  I hope there never comes a day when those limits are tested.  But if they are, I am glad the Second Amendment ensures the US government – unlike the Chinese government – will not have a monopoly on power. 

Freedom is Costly

None of what I have written means I take the deaths caused in mass shootings lightly.  Every death is a tragedy.  And it is certainly the case that the right to keep and bear arms comes at a cost – the cost we incur when that right is abused.  But we do not jettison our fundamental rights even when it is absolutely certain that public safety would be increased if we did.  This principle is true not only of RKBA; it is equally true of many of our other freedoms.  As the Supreme Court noted in McDonald:

The right to keep and bear arms, however, is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications.  All of the constitutional provisions that impose restrictions on law enforcement and on the prosecution of crimes fall into the same category.  The exclusionary rule generates substantial social costs, which sometimes include setting the guilty free and the dangerous at large.  [There are] serious consequences of dismissal for a speedy trial violation, which means a defendant who may be guilty of a serious crime will go free.  In some unknown number of cases [the Miranda rule] will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets to repeat his crime.

We could do away with the right against self-incrimination and let cops beat confessions out of suspects.  There is not the slightest doubt that if we did, countless lives would be saved by keeping criminals off the street.  We do not give up this and other freedoms even though they come at a high cost.  Why? Because in the United States we have chosen a dangerous freedom over a peaceful slavery. 

_______________

1561 U.S. 742, 778 (2010).

2United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1876).

31 W. & M., ch. 2, § 7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441.

4District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 593 (2008).

51 Blackstone 141 (1765). 

61 Blackstone’s Commentaries, Editor’s App. 300 (S. Tucker ed. 1803). 

73 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1890, 746 (1833). 

8McDonald, 561 U.S. at 770.

Comments
JVL, the US is the linchpin. Especially once relevant actors are on the other side. Start with, what navy holds the sea lanes open. KFkairosfocus
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
ET: Wow. Without the US NATO can’t stop anyone. Uh huh. The combined military forces of England, France, Germany, Spain, Norway, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Poland, Denmark, The Netherlands, Turkey, etc can't stop anyone? Really? Do you know how many countries there are in NATO?JVL
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
NZ doesn't have a strong military.ET
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
Wow. Without the US NATO can't stop anyone.ET
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
Jerry - thanks. You've rested your case by ignoring the lack of a causal connection between the second amendment and having a strong military, which I think says a lot.Bob O'H
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
Jerry: You got to be kidding! I rest my case. Do you know how arrogant and dismissive you sound to the rest of the world? I'm not sure you do.JVL
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
The NZ military? The Australians might help as well. ... it’s called NATO. It’s not just the US, it’s a bunch of other countries too. None of which have a second amendment right of citizens to carry guns.
You got to be kidding! I rest my case.jerry
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
Bob O'H: it’s called NATO. It’s not just the US, it’s a bunch of other countries too. None of which have a second amendment right of citizens to carry guns. Exactly so. Why is it that so many Americans think that they're the last bastion of freedom and democracy?JVL
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
Most definitely a strong army and strong navy is what is at the heart of what’s being discussed. A prerequisite for such an army and navy to defend freedom is a free people in the US. Name one other force that would protect New Zealand besides the US military.
The NZ military? The Australians might help as well. And how New Zealand having an army affects the second amendment rights of Americans isn't clear to me. I don't think well regulated militias were intended as a response to hoards of Kiwis invading your shores.
My guess that the threat to Norway would be Russia and the only thing preventing it is a strong US military.
it's called NATO. It's not just the US, it's a bunch of other countries too. None of which have a second amendment right of citizens to carry guns.Bob O'H
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
If by that you mean they might be invaded by (say) Russia, then perhaps. But that would be an argument for a strong army, which is not what is being discussed here.
Most definitely a strong army and strong navy is what is at the heart of what’s being discussed. A prerequisite for such an army and navy to defend freedom is a free people in the US. Name one other force that would protect New Zealand besides the US military. Responsible gun ownership in US => free people in US => ensures non oppressive government in US => strong military responsive to cause of freedom => protection of small freedom oriented countries. It would not be Russia that would be the threat to New Zealand but China. My guess that the threat to Norway would be Russia and the only thing preventing it is a strong US military. How’s your Russian?jerry
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
Jerry: The use of guns was baked into the British colonies so it’s absurd to think it wasn’t baked in at the time of Constitution. But the private ownership of guns has severely faded in Britain despite the fact that there was a real possibility that Germany would invade during WWII. And there were worries about Napoleon a century before that. Perhaps after over two millennia of battles on the British Isles the people there, while willing to take up arms to defend themselves have decided: we would rather try not to shoot each other from now on.JVL
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
From the book “Fragile by Design’
The combination of these factors—hostile neighbors, abundant land, and storable crops that could be grown on small production units—meant that British America was a society of small, freeholding farmers who were armed to the teeth. Some colonies, such as Virginia, required every able-bodied male to own a firearm. There were, of course, large landowners, British elites who were connected to the companies that had initially settled the 13 colonies on the franchise model (see chapter 3) or who had arrived later with the royal governors sent by the crown when the colonization companies failed. These elites looked down their noses at the small farmers, but they could not maintain a viable colony without them: what stood between the elites and the Spanish, French, and Indians were independent farmers who, as William Blathwayt, the auditor general of the colonies, observed in 1691, “all Learn to keep and use a gun with a Marvelous dexterity as soon as ever they have strength enough to lift it to their heads.
The use of guns was baked into the British colonies so it’s absurd to think it wasn’t baked in at the time of Constitution.jerry
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
Jerry -
The people in New Zealand can laugh at this but the only thing between them and an oppressive government is a free and strong United States.
If by that you mean they might be invaded by (say) Russia, then perhaps. But that would be an argument for a strong army, which is not what is being discussed here.Bob O'H
April 20, 2021
April
04
Apr
20
20
2021
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
Return of the Maori Battalion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9PuhVKE4xY And here is more https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erF8VxhJH_4kairosfocus
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
OOPS, VC means, Victoria Cross. Like your Medal of Honor. Rare, and hard won, IIRC there were a few cases of and bar, i.e. double award. KFkairosfocus
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT
JVL, I think, given what is going on, the old Swiss model might be highly relevant. That would give point defence everywhere. KFkairosfocus
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
Jerry, I give the Kiwis their due, man for man when the chips were down they were the most decorated Commonwealth soldiers. And that includes both sides of the unique alliance, the Maori too. A warrior nation in their own right. Indeed, it continues: a Maori won a VC in Afghanistan. No one should count the Kiwis or their cousins in Australia out if liberty is on the line; but there are just too few and not enough hardware to truly hold the line if the balloon really goes up. That said, there is no doubt that the leaders in freedom have been the Americans and the US Navy is especially important. The ruin of liberty in the US would be a death knell for global liberty. In that context the bill of rights complete with the teeth in the 2nd amdt is the bulwark of global liberty, that is how important the 4th generation civil war in the US is. I think we are entering a slow-burn, Midway-Guadalcanal analogue as the radical push moves ever deeper into strategic overstretch. Things are truly sobering and it is going to be costly. KF PS: Just today, Frank launched, only to be hit by a huge denial of service type attack it seems. They switched to a 48 hr telethon format, when I monitored they had 30 mn hits and those seemed to come from all around the globe [though part may be anonymity services]. An attack on that scale effectively at the moment of launch is pretty blatant demonstration of the ruthlessness and heavy resources we are clearly up against as a civilisation. The failure to respond appropriately to the contempt driven assault on freedom implied by such an attack, coming from key media, is a sobering sign. PPS, looks like double that level now.kairosfocus
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
There was a book written 4-5 years ago how how the common man has essentially determined the fate of the country. It was about banking but went into the history of the US in ways that are not usually done. It made the point that in the famous painting of Washington crossing the Delaware to attack Trenton, the most important person in the boat was not Washington but the common person pulling the oars. They were all small farmers and to a man would carry their rifle/musket everywhere they went. Mainly for protection because somewhere nearby was someone who was hostile and might kill them. There were English, Indians and French in the north and Spanish replaced the French in the south. Carrying a gun for protection was an essential in the United States. The argument today is that it is still essential though few if any carry rifles everywhere they go. Maybe in their pickup. But a large number still carry and I believe there are statistics on the crimes they prevent and lives they save. Is the choice between allowing conscientious citizens to have guns or an authoritarian government that would have no opposition? The people in New Zealand can laugh at this but the only thing between them and an oppressive government is a free and strong United States. (By the way I lived in New Zealand (Christchurch) for a year and really liked the Kiwis)jerry
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
KF, I am amazed at the depth of your knowledge of US history. You know volumes more than most citizens.Barry Arrington
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
JVL, there used to be regular musters for practice on the local green or the like. At Gettysburg, an old gentleman did muster himself for the Union. KFkairosfocus
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: the militia in question is the able bodied, well regulated translates into effective infantry Under command of trained military personnel? Not a guarantee things will stay sane but it might help. Anyway, it's a complicated issue. I don't have an answer on how best to protect citizens' rights and the innocent; I don't think anyone does.JVL
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington: Yes, he is wrong about those things you highlight. I used his article to rebut the slavery thesis you adopted from Wiki to demonstrate that even gun control nuts like him have found it to be bunk. He is, as it were, testifying against interest. His errors that you highlight have been thoroughly discredited and rejected by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald. It is a complicated issue all around. Which is why I don't pretend to have an answer. I only have opinions none of which I have attempted to defend or come up with legal support for. Not on gun control in the US that is. Like I said I have many, many relatives in the US that are responsible and safe gun owners none of whom (as far as I know) has had to fire a weapon in self defence or done so in anger. So, my own personal experience is: I don't see a problem. I personally don't feel a need to own or carry one so I don't see the urge to own one just to have it either. Collecting and nostalgia aside; you should never get rid of history. It's pretty clear that a majority of American gun owners are safe and responsible. I wish I did have an answer of how to stop situations like Dunblane, Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc. When innocent people are killed because someone with a gun has a problem and they were just unlucky is a pure tragedy. Safety training will help prevent some accidents due to mishandling. Registration will stop some unfit people from acquiring a weapon legally. Perhaps some kind of insurance? A limit on how many weapons or ammunition you can buy? Who knows? It's something everyone in the US should be willing to talk about to come up with a solution that actually protects citizens' rights and makes it less likely innocents will die. PS I have fired several different types of weapons over the years and enjoyed it just as much as anyone. I will happily participate in some skeet shooting in the future if invited. The most interesting weapon I used was a black-powder rifle. Now that kicked.JVL
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
JVL
So, I guess you, Barry, would agree with Paul Finkelman on some things and not on others.
Yes, he is wrong about those things you highlight. I used his article to rebut the slavery thesis you adopted from Wiki to demonstrate that even gun control nuts like him have found it to be bunk. He is, as it were, testifying against interest. His errors that you highlight have been thoroughly discredited and rejected by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald.Barry Arrington
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
JVL, the militia in question is the able bodied, well regulated translates into effective infantry. When power is reserved to the people that is not the state. The history of the minutemen gives a pretty good idea of how close to hand the arms were. Read the story of the Deerfield massacre. KFkairosfocus
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
LateMarch @ 77 LoL! Thank you!ET
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington: Surely the intent of the law is something to take into consideration when considering legal applications? Do you yourself not take intent into consideration when making legal arguments? I hadn't every heard of the above perspective before and I do not consider the modern arguments for the right to gun ownership racist in any way. I don't think anyone here advocating for the right to keep and bear arms has used a racist reason. I am not accusing anyone of being a racist. Looking at your link which disagrees with the passages from Wikipedia I found this:
I have long argued that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to own firearms, and that the purpose of the amendment was purely to guarantee that the states could maintain their own militias. I have also written a great deal on how the Constitution protected slavery (see my book Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson), and I am not shy about pointing out how the founders protected slavery. Indeed, my most recent public comment on slavery and the founding was an op-ed in the New York Times on Jefferson and slavery titled "The Monster of Monticello."
Seems like the notion of a well regulated militia is not always taken into account. And a bit further on . . .
. . . race plays a big factor in why the Second Amendment was not designed to create an individual right to own guns. No one in 1789 would have imagined that the amendment prohibited the national government from disarming free blacks in the territories or the District of Columbia. The amendment merely prevented the national government from destroying the state militias. But, since the amendment did not apply to the states, they were all free to regulate firearms ownership, as they did. The U.S. Supreme Court has misunderstood this, but that only shows that Justices Scalia and Thomas are not really interested in original intent.
And . . .
People in a number of states feared that the national government would abolish the state militias. Madison thought these fears were nonsense, since the national defense at that time rested on a "well-regulated militia." Thus he answered their concerns with the Second Amendment. He drafted an amendment to protect the right of the states to maintain their militias. Some other anti-federalists wanted a federal guarantee of a right to own weapons for hunting and self-defense and even a federal right to go fishing. Madison wisely ignored these demands and emphatically did not offer an individual right to own weapons.
So, I guess you, Barry, would agree with Paul Finkelman on some things and not on others. Fair enough, it's a complicated issue.JVL
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
Yes, thank you for the Wiki entry. We all know it is unbiased and disinterested in political matters so we can take that to the bank. "X is racist!" said every progressive about every X when they couldn't answer the arguments for X (which is usually). Yes some scholars have advanced the thesis in Wiki. It has been completely exploded since. If you are interested in the history instead of propaganda, read here.Barry Arrington
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
JVL, that the militia principle -- essentially the able bodied -- was abused to oppress slaves does not mean there was not a right use. For example, consider the Minutemen. KFkairosfocus
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
An interesting perspective: (from the Wikipedia entry on the Second Amendment)
n the slave states, the militia was available for military operations, but its biggest function was to police the slaves. According to Dr Carl T. Bogus, Professor of Law of the Roger Williams University Law School in Rhode Island, the Second Amendment was written to assure the Southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by using its newly acquired constitutional authority over the militia to disarm the state militia and thereby destroy the South's principal instrument of slave control. In his close analysis of James Madison's writings, Bogus describes the South's obsession with militias during the ratification process:
The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population. Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats.
This preoccupation is clearly expressed in 1788 by the slaveholder Patrick Henry:
If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress ... Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution; addition not mentioned in source], can call forth the militia.
Therefore, in a compromise with the slave states, and to reassure Patrick Henry, George Mason and other slaveholders that they would be able to keep their slave control militias independent of the federal government, James Madison (also slave owner) redrafted the Second Amendment into its current form "for the specific purpose of assuring the Southern states, and particularly his constituents in Virginia, that the federal government would not undermine their security against slave insurrection by disarming the militia."
Also:
According to Pennsylvania attorney Anthony Picadio, the Southern slave states would never have ratified the Second Amendment if it had been understood as creating an individual right to own firearms because of their fear of arming free blacks, hence the emphasis on the phrase "well regulated Militia", introducing the Second Amendment. Firstly, slave owners feared that enslaved blacks might be emancipated through military service. A few years earlier, there had been a precedent when Lord Dunmore offered freedom to slaves who escaped and joined his forces with "Liberty to Slaves" stitched onto their jacket pocket flaps. Freed slaves had also served in General Washington's army. Secondly, they also greatly feared "a ruinous slave rebellion in which their families would be slaughtered and their property destroyed." When Virginia ratified the Bill of Rights on Dec. 15, 1791, the Haitian revolution, a successful slave rebellion, was under way. The right to bear arms was therefore deliberately tied to membership in a militia by the slaveholder and chief drafter of the Amendment, James Madison, because only whites could join militias in the South. In 1776, Thomas Jefferson had submitted a draft constitution for Virginia that said "no freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements". According to Picadio, this version was rejected because "it would have given to free blacks the constitutional right to have firearms".
JVL
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
ET@75 "Only a moron thinks that the US Constitution allows babies to own guns." Here you go!Latemarch
April 19, 2021
April
04
Apr
19
19
2021
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply