I have questions for 2A absolutists

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
24,931
915
126
I knew that. I just wondered what subset of 3%'er whackadoodles compiled it. Or are you ashamed to reveal your sources?
There's multiple sources for them, just do a google search. Who compiled them is really not that relevant. And there's plenty of other context for the 2A from the founding fathers. Even then some things were obvious:

(1) the Founders consistently supported the right of "free men" to own guns for self defense (from others or animals).

No Freeman shall ever be disbarred from the use of arms. Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self-defense. John Adams

(2) It was taken as a given that American citizens would be armed since in that day that was basically the norm. It wasn't a concession on the founders part, more of a recognition of the reality of gun ownership in 18th century America:

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

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms 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 prevent homicides from an unarmed man, may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Paine
(3) The founders basically made little to no distinction between "the people" and the militia - the militia basically was the people.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country. James Madison

It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency. George Washington
(4) Besides just acknowledging the then current reality of wide public gun ownership, the "militia concept" was intended to be a primary means of opposing federal government power (via standing armies able to militarily overpower the individual states) and potential means of keeping the federal government in check or even overthrowing it if needed. An unspoken secondary reason was to gain southern support since "militias" were a key tool in searching for and retrieving runaway slaves and the states didn't want this tool to be taken away from them.

That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free state, that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided. George Mason

A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms. Richard Henry Lee
(5) The founders realized that disarming the people was a primary prerequisite in imposing a tyranny, and thus considered worth the risk.

Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms. James Madison

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Patrick Henry
(6) And yet, the founders then just as now recognized the risks inherent in the proposition of armed people and wanted to use the militia concept to put some degree of guardrails on how the government controls them (or doesn't control them), IOW there was already some of the push/pull instincts related to arms going on even at the founding of the republic:

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. John Adams
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
24,848
4,563
126
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789


When you look for founding father quotes they seem to be overwhelmingly FOR the individual right to own arms as that provides the ability to form a militia to fight back against an invader or tyrannical government.
And yet when they wrote the constitution and they all agreed to it, that right was no where to be found. When the second was added they made it a state right.

Its funny how you dumb ass nutters conveniently ignore the one document that everyone signed and therefore agreed to, the constitution.
 
Last edited:

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
24,848
4,563
126
There's multiple sources for them, just do a google search. Who compiled them is really not that relevant. And there's plenty of other context for the 2A from the founding fathers. Even then some things were obvious:

(1) the Founders consistently supported the right of "free men" to own guns for self defense (from others or animals).




(2) It was taken as a given that American citizens would be armed since in that day that was basically the norm. It wasn't a concession on the founders part, more of a recognition of the reality of gun ownership in 18th century America:



(3) The founders basically made little to no distinction between "the people" and the militia - the militia basically was the people.



(4) Besides just acknowledging the then current reality of wide public gun ownership, the "militia concept" was intended to be a primary means of opposing federal government power (via standing armies able to militarily overpower the individual states) and potential means of keeping the federal government in check or even overthrowing it if needed. An unspoken secondary reason was to gain southern support since "militias" were a key tool in searching for and retrieving runaway slaves and the states didn't want this tool to be taken away from them.



(5) The founders realized that disarming the people was a primary prerequisite in imposing a tyranny, and thus considered worth the risk.



(6) And yet, the founders then just as now recognized the risks inherent in the proposition of armed people and wanted to use the militia concept to put some degree of guardrails on how the government controls them (or doesn't control them), IOW there was already some of the push/pull instincts related to arms going on even at the founding of the republic:
Your failure to understand the difference between a militia and a normal citizen with a gun is why you still don't get it.

As to number 6, the founding fathers were so smart that they enshrined the duty of the federal government and the duty of the states to use THEIR militias to put down the very people you think they empowered to keep the government in check. Why do you continue to ignore this point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
24,931
915
126
Your failure to understand the difference between a militia and a normal citizen with a gun is why you still don't get it.

As to number 6, the founding fathers were so smart that they enshrined the duty of the federal government and the duty of the states to use THEIR militias to put down the very people you think they empowered to keep the government in check. Why do you continue to ignore this point?
A militia is a collective term used to refer to a bunch of normal citizens with guns. Notionally it's intended to be directed by a state actor but that's not a requirement. Don't know how much clearer that can be than how it's put in this statement in my post you quoted:

A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms. Richard Henry Lee
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
24,848
4,563
126
A militia is a collective term used to refer to a bunch of normal citizens with guns. Notionally it's intended to be directed by a state actor but that's not a requirement. Don't know how much clearer that can be than how it's put in this statement in my post you quoted:
Lol it most certainly is a requirement, one set by, wait for it.... The constitution. Article 1 section 8 paragraph 16.

Have you even read the constitution?
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
5,439
1,628
116
Lol it most certainly is a requirement, one set by, wait for it.... The constitution. Article 1 section 8 paragraph 16.

Have you even read the constitution?
The constitution does not define terms. It defines limits to the power of the Federal Government. There's zero text that states 'no militias may exist outside the the control of the Federal Government, nor may anyone be armed outside of Federal Government controlled militias'.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
24,931
915
126
Lol it most certainly is a requirement, one set by, wait for it.... The constitution. Article 1 section 8 paragraph 16.

Have you even read the constitution?
So the founders wrote that using your interpretation and then made no effort to enforce it whatsoever? No effort to remove guns from citizens, no limiting firearms to use only in "well governed militias" and not private citizens, and even a law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792 ) that literally required citizens to buy guns, ammunition, and other supplies? Does that combined with their statements about how "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms" sound like a policy where guns WEREN'T supposed to be owned and borne directly by the individual citizen? Come on man, you're not that stupid to actually believe that. It's fine to say something honest like "I wish the 2A didn't exist or that we could repeal it since other people owning guns frightens me" but making up shit outright? That's Trump level thinking lying.
 

cytg111

Diamond Member
Mar 17, 2008
9,896
2,090
136
A militia is a collective term used to refer to a bunch of normal citizens with guns. Notionally it's intended to be directed by a state actor but that's not a requirement. Don't know how much clearer that can be than how it's put in this statement in my post you quoted:
What? That.. No.. Its... Jfc. Militia in this CONTEXT is akin to the national guard.
So Glenn & Slow's roadshow here claims that a states militia / national guard ==
Just with guns. And by guns we mean pistols.

Also, I put forth, that for each gun a man owns, he must also present at least one bayonet and at least one horse.

Good job.

Is logic dead? I didnt get the memo.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
5,439
1,628
116
Militia in this CONTEXT is akin to the national guard.
According to whom? Those that wrote it clearly had a thought in mind as to who the 'militia' of America was, and it was whoever damn well felt like they could take up arms.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
24,848
4,563
126
The constitution does not define terms. It defines limits to the power of the Federal Government. There's zero text that states 'no militias may exist outside the the control of the Federal Government, nor may anyone be armed outside of Federal Government controlled militias'.
Lol thanks for showing everyone that you too haven't read the constitution. Article 1 section 8 paragraph 16 lays out exactly who controls militias and when and who decides how they are trained and who decides who does that training.

The word militia wasn't defined because it's definition was never in question. However we know exactly what the founding fathers meant by "militia" because they used the term multiple times and none of them describe or could possibly mean a non government controlled, unorganized, random group of people with guns, which is exactly what nutters want it to mean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

cytg111

Diamond Member
Mar 17, 2008
9,896
2,090
136
According to whom? Those that wrote it clearly had a thought in mind as to who the 'militia' of America was, and it was whoever damn well felt like they could take up arms.
Ok. That is not the meaning I get from reading it. I refer you to the python video above and urge you to imagine them with belt fed assault weapons ... Maybe on horse back.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
24,848
4,563
126
So the founders wrote that using your interpretation and then made no effort to enforce it whatsoever? No effort to remove guns from citizens, no limiting firearms to use only in "well governed militias" and not private citizens, and even a law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792 ) that literally required citizens to buy guns, ammunition, and other supplies? Does that combined with their statements about how "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms" sound like a policy where guns WEREN'T supposed to be owned and borne directly by the individual citizen? Come on man, you're not that stupid to actually believe that. It's fine to say something honest like "I wish the 2A didn't exist or that we could repeal it since other people owning guns frightens me" but making up shit outright? That's Trump level thinking lying.
Lol!! Um... There have been many laws put in place by the states and the federal government that the supreme court have upheld as constitutional and there are 150 years of supreme court precedence that states the 2nd is a states rights issue. In fact several of those cases were even posted in this very thread.

The only thing trumpian going on in this thread is the total denial of facts and wishful thinking you nutters have about an amendment you clearly know nothing about.

Oh and btw, the militia acts back my opinion not yours.

From the Wikipedia entry you clearly didn't read or comprehend.

The acts provided for the organization of the state militias and provided for the President of the United States to take command of the state militias in times of imminent invasion or insurrection. This authority was used to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.
What part of "state militias" are you having trouble with?
 
Last edited:

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
5,439
1,628
116
Ok. That is not the meaning I get from reading it. I refer you to the python video above and urge you to imagine them with belt fed assault weapons ... Maybe on horse back.
I can honestly state that I have no idea what you're talking about. Not really interested in random youtube videos in lieu of actual conversation.

It's the meaning I get from reading the notes of the founders regarding their interpretation of what a militia is, in principal.

Lol thanks for showing everyone that you too haven't read the constitution. Article 1 section 8 paragraph 16 lays out exactly who controls militias and when and who decides how they are trained and who decides who does that training.

The word militia wasn't defined because it's definition was never in question. However we know exactly what the founding fathers meant by "militia" because they used the term multiple times and none of them describe or could possibly mean a non government controlled, unorganized, random group of people with guns, which is exactly what nutters want it to mean.
Again, it does not 'lay out who controls a militia'. The literal line is as follows:
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

It states that a portion of the US militia may be employed for the defense of the United States, and that the US Govt will organize, arm, and discipline the militia. Functionally the US government does that via arms control, licensing, and creation of laws regarding firearms and other weapons (such as they are). They also do indeed employ citizens in a state-level national guard system, thus fulfilling those obligations. One could make an argument that the govt has been relatively lax when it comes to the formalized organizing, arming, and disciplining of the citizenry, but nowhere in that line of text is it established that the US militia/militias consists of X, only X, no Y or Z, and no potential for A-W.

It defines LIMITS, not minimal authority. The US government and the states that make it up are not permitted to act outside the LIMITS of the constitution and subsequent amendments, that document is NOT a list of things the government gets to do, or a list of things US citizens gets to do, nor is it a list of limits placed on US citizen's rights. Literally everything NOT defined by the constitution is permitted, unless subject to state/federal law which is limited by the constitution.

The US government is not permitted to define a militia and thus subject the citizenry to new interpretations of the constitution or second amendment because that duty is not defined/permitted within the constitution.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,173
964
126
And yet when they wrote the constitution and all agreed to it, that right was no where to be found. When the second was added they made it a state right.

Its funny how you dumb ass nutters conveniently ignore the one document that everyone signed and therefore agreed to, the constitution.

If it is in the constitution, than it is a universal right to all states. it is not a state right. As an example, politician cannot block free speech in New Hampshire, that would not be constitutional. The second amendment applies the same.
 

cytg111

Diamond Member
Mar 17, 2008
9,896
2,090
136
I can honestly state that I have no idea what you're talking about. Not really interested in random youtube videos in lieu of actual conversation.
That could be because I am making a mockery of the situation.
A set of people (that is only a set for the common denominator the they have a gun) is not a militia. Its just a bunch of idiots with guns pointing in random directions. I throw in horses (and bayonets) in reference to the Obama vs. Romney debate "nature of our military have changed" - (might ring a bell?).
Nature of conflict has changed. Nature of military have changed. Nature of fucking guns have changed. And some people will read a "2nd" like the Taliban reads the Koran. Good job.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
5,439
1,628
116
That could be because I am making a mockery of the situation.
A set of people (that is only a set for the common denominator the they have a gun) is not a militia. Its just a bunch of idiots with guns pointing in random directions. I throw in horses (and bayonets) in reference to the Obama vs. Romney debate "nature of our military have changed" - (might ring a bell?).
Nature of conflict has changed. Nature of military have changed. Nature of fucking guns have changed. And some people will read a "2nd" like the Taliban reads the Koran. Good job.
'A bunch of idiots with x doing y' is basically all of humanity, throughout all of human history. You're singling out this because you don't like it, or think it should change. There's zero things wrong with that but it has to be changed the right way, which in this case is a constitutional amendment. Hand-wringing and complaining about it on the internet does nothing but divide people, just as you're trying to do (by comparing people who care about this to Taliban).

Nature of armed conflict hasn't changed one whit, aside from the invention of the atomic bomb (purely due to potential for multi-generational area denial). Old people telling young people to go kill other young people. The tools change, the methods adapt to the changing tools, and the body counts go up. In the end it's just people fighting people for one dumbshit reason or another, and none of that has anything to do with a person's right to defend themselves, which is what the 2A was designed for.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
24,931
915
126
Lol!! Um... There have been many laws put in place by the states and the federal government that the supreme court have upheld as constitutional and there are 150 years of supreme court precedence that states the 2nd is a states rights issue. In fact several of those cases were even posted in this very thread.

The only thing trumpian going on in this thread is the total denial of facts and wishful thinking you nutters have about an amendment you clearly know nothing about.

Oh and btw, the militia acts back my opinion not yours.

From the Wikipedia entry you clearly didn't read or comprehend.



What part of "state militias" are you having trouble with?
Feel free to invent whatever interpretation you want. Here in reality world hundreds of millions of firearms exist in private hands and always will.
 

cytg111

Diamond Member
Mar 17, 2008
9,896
2,090
136
'A bunch of idiots with x doing y' is basically all of humanity, throughout all of human history. You're singling out this because you don't like it, or think it should change. There's zero things wrong with that but it has to be changed the right way, which in this case is a constitutional amendment. Hand-wringing and complaining about it on the internet does nothing but divide people, just as you're trying to do (by comparing people who care about this to Taliban).

Nature of armed conflict hasn't changed one whit, aside from the invention of the atomic bomb (purely due to potential for multi-generational area denial). Old people telling young people to go kill other young people. The tools change, the methods adapt to the changing tools, and the body counts go up. In the end it's just people fighting people for one dumbshit reason or another, and none of that has anything to do with a person's right to defend themselves, which is what the 2A was designed for.
Yes I single it out. I dont like it cause its stupid. A militia has dicipline. Training. Dicipline. More training. With that video I was trying to point out the opposite.
You are telling me that the nature of your threat vector havent changed? Expecting an invasion? That shit is over... When you loose your democracy it is through another mechanism... And guns havent changed?????? ??????? ???????????????? ???.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
5,439
1,628
116
Yes I single it out. I dont like it cause its stupid.
That's fine, work to change it. Don't bitch on message boards and compare people to the Taliban
A militia has dicipline. Training. Dicipline. More training.
Ideally, yes. Not required.
You are telling me that the nature of your threat vector havent changed? Expecting an invasion? That shit is over... When you loose your democracy it is through another mechanism... And guns havent changed?????? ??????? ???????????????? ???.
Guns have changed incrementally, there's no vaporization of corpses from hand-held weapons available at wal-mart or anything asinine like that. Yes they're more capable than their 20th, 19th, 18th, or 17th century counterparts, but conceptually they behave the same way, same for crossbows and to a lesser extent, bows (required far more skill and strength). Little metal rock flies out, causes massive internal damage to target, repeat as fast as the weapon permits.

Yes, I know that threats are different in modern times than past. That doesn't change the fact that if the aggressors have state of the art weaponry, those being put upon need as close to state of the art as possible to defend themselves. This scales up from person-to-person conflict to full-scale invasion from a state actor.

Btw not everyone loses their independence from 'other mechanisms', see Crimea, Georgia. That may not be a specific concern for the US, but the 2A was never purely about foreign actors.
 

mdram

Golden Member
Jan 2, 2014
1,479
199
106
one could go as far as to say that when the 2nd was written, private individuals had the exact same weapons as the military. including cannons, and warships

so the founding fathers knew about this.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
27,025
587
126
I just Love making you gun nutters go all ape shit!! TRIGGERED all of you!! hahhahaaaaaaaaa
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
24,848
4,563
126
I can honestly state that I have no idea what you're talking about. Not really interested in random youtube videos in lieu of actual conversation.

It's the meaning I get from reading the notes of the founders regarding their interpretation of what a militia is, in principal.


Again, it does not 'lay out who controls a militia'. The literal line is as follows:
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

It states that a portion of the US militia may be employed for the defense of the United States, and that the US Govt will organize, arm, and discipline the militia. Functionally the US government does that via arms control, licensing, and creation of laws regarding firearms and other weapons (such as they are). They also do indeed employ citizens in a state-level national guard system, thus fulfilling those obligations. One could make an argument that the govt has been relatively lax when it comes to the formalized organizing, arming, and disciplining of the citizenry, but nowhere in that line of text is it established that the US militia/militias consists of X, only X, no Y or Z, and no potential for A-W.

It defines LIMITS, not minimal authority. The US government and the states that make it up are not permitted to act outside the LIMITS of the constitution and subsequent amendments, that document is NOT a list of things the government gets to do, or a list of things US citizens gets to do, nor is it a list of limits placed on US citizen's rights. Literally everything NOT defined by the constitution is permitted, unless subject to state/federal law which is limited by the constitution.

The US government is not permitted to define a militia and thus subject the citizenry to new interpretations of the constitution or second amendment because that duty is not defined/permitted within the constitution.
Reading is hard. Comprehending what you read is even harder. See if you can re-read that paragraph (from the constitution) and understand what you are reading.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
24,848
4,563
126
Feel free to invent whatever interpretation you want. Here in reality world hundreds of millions of firearms exist in private hands and always will.
I didn't invent anything, I'm just capable of reading.

I'm not sure what reality has to do with the discussion other than reality is what you are refusing to acknowledge. How many guns there are is immaterial to the conversation.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY