What America's Founders intended in the Second Amendment

Canada Free Press ^ | 03/23/19 | Don Mellon

[Pelham]

“Our colonies and country were founded by people who fled tyrannical governments that simply wouldnt let them live their certain Christian denomination wherever they were in europe.”

Not true for Jamestown. The first, and as Virginia, the largest colony of what became the United States.

[faithhopecharity]

our Founders intended all citizens able and willing to defend against enemies foreign and domestic, including the very much feared federal government they established going bonkers or seizing more power than the limited powers they so carefully enumerated to it.......(regrettably, the federal government did just that...as they feared so much..grabbing excessive powers while abrogating the individual rights of citizens....these unfortunate events only heighten the critical importance of Americans staying fully armed and at the ready...Plus, there is now the spectacle of millions of illegals invading USA...again, Americans must be ready to defend their homes and communities)

[umgud]

Unloaded and in a locked strong box when you’re out of the house.

[suthener]

I would say you’re pretty much exactly right. People don’t realize that what you describe is exactly what happened to the founding fathers. The British weren’t an invading force; everyone involved was British.

[Phlyer]

. . . it occurred to me that it could be looked at as follows:

“A well-regulated militia, . . .

The problem with this and most of the other comments is that this is one phrase where the meaning in contemporary English has changed from the original meaning.

"Well-regulated" did not mean "controlled by laws not passed by Congress." "Well-regulated" meant "smoothly and efficiently operating." Hence, many clocks were called, "Regulators", not because they controlled things by written rules, but because they operated smoothly and efficiently.

So, a 'well-regulated' militia was one that could operate efficiently in the absence of direct control by government. This is exactly derived from our experience during the Revolutionary War, and in particular by Lexington and Concord. On Lexington Green, our militia tried to fight a set-piece battle with British Army regulars, and lost terribly. Our 'militia' was not a conventional military force and not able to participate effectively in conventional military battles.

But, after that the British marched on Concord. The 'militia' sniped at them from behind fences and trees and hay bales, using their own personal weapons with which they were already skilled. And they tore the British regulars up.

So, the most direct and reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment follows from that experience. In order to have an effective militia, the people need to have their own weapons and be familiar with their use. They don't need to be members of a conventional military force, because that didn't work well for us (and beside, we didn't trust a standing army anyway), but woe to the enemy who tries to attack us when every tree, every hay bale, and every fence hides ordinary citizens who are very skilled in using their personal weapons to shoot whatever they feel needs to be shot - whether it's a deer, a robber, or a uniformed soldier.

I don't disagree with those who say that the Second Amendment is about fighting tyranny, but the key is that the skill the members of the militia bring - for whatever purpose - is a result of their owning and using firearms in their ordinary lives. Hence they could report for militia duty already possessing the weapons and the skills to support effective service to the public good.

[Robert357]

On of the missing perspectives in the RTKABA argument is the State Constitutions written about the same time or before the federal constitution. A few of them use different words and also, some of them are very clear that the RTKABA includes the right to use arms to defend oneself.

[Secret Agent Man]

Jamestown was the socialist experiment that failed.

[elteemike]

And put another way...

“A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.”

Who has the right? The well-balanced breakfast, or the people?

It’s really very simple to understand; unless the aim is to deceive the unthinking...

[elteemike]

Oh, yeah! I like that and know just the Leftards to use it on...

[Pelham]

“Jamestown was the socialist experiment that failed.”

Socialism? Jamestown in fact was a joint stock company, the Virginia Company, financed by investors in London who hoped for a return on their investment. The colonists were financially supported by the Virginia Company.

The colony didn’t fail but the Virginia Company went bankrupt in 1624 and the colony was reorganized as a royal colony ruled by the Crown.

[Hardastarboard]

The Second Amendment is about killing people. In particular politicians when they become tyrants, their armies (then I lean in and stare them down) and their supporters.

Agreed 100 million percent. And, based on history, they ALL eventually become tyrannical. I'm such a purist that I even think that the right to self defense from crime, while certainly an inalienable right, is not really what the Second Amendment is about. It truly, really, really is about remaining free men, but only as a very last resort.

[867V309]

It was about the citizenry being able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

IOW, the second was meant to guarantee we could kill anyone coming to take our guns.

[GreyHoundSailor]

As if I need to rely on an Amendment in the Bill of Rights to allow me to do that.

[PLMerite]

[Nothing harder than having to fight for EACH AND EVERY HOUSE or block when invading.]

Or when having to oppress your own people.

[MHGinTN]

Great post. No wonder the left has destroyed American History as a requirement to graduate FROM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL!

[21twelve]

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html

Above is an interesting article about the Powder Alarm where much of the language of the 2nd Amendment is also included. The British raided the local militia’s powder warehouse six months or so prior to Lexington/Concord. The local militia was British - and was primarily to be called upon to fight Indians iirc.

Anyway - so the people got together and decided to change it from a British militia to an “American” one. Wrote up new rules - but all the folks in the old one kept their same ranks and duties.

They also started training on a more regular basis.

I’ve read elsewhere that if the British Army had not taken the powder, we probably would have won the battle of Bunker Hill. (And “arms” included cannons).

[dp0622]

True.

I would like to think a number of officers would step aside like the french soldiers did when the revolution started.

Then we could start chopping off heads :)

Start with talking heads!

[Lurker]

“It truly, really, really is about remaining free men, but only as a very last resort.“

It’s the Doomsday Provision of the Constitution to be used when all else has failed. That hasn’t happened, yet. But we are at what Claire Wolfe once called “the awkward stage”.

L

[Big Red Badger]

Lexington and Concord.
All I need to Know.

[Big Red Badger]

Can I use that?