![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
emiofbrieI think it's important to mention this, in light of the the coming Supreme Court decision on whether or not they will hear the case regarding the DC gun ban.
User 'mickeyrat' at USA Today forums brought up these quotes, many of which were stated while the Constitution was being ratified. All sources are stated.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson, proposed Virginia constitution, June 1776. Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)
"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, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764, pp 87-88.
"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, During the Massachusetts U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at the individual discretion, in private self-defense." John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787-88
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, during Virginia's ratification convention, June 4, 1788 (From J. Elliott, Debates in the General State Conventions 425 (3rd ed. 1937).
Especially these last 2:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of people, trained in arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." James Madison, I Annuals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)
That was almost word for word the phrasing of the 2nd Amendment, which makes our 4th President essentially the author of said amendment. But he also had this further to say in "The Federalist", in which he DEFINES what it means:
"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison, The Federalist No. 46
That was straight from the author of the amendment himself....
I think the matter is settled, regardless how the Supreme Court decides.
User 'mickeyrat' at USA Today forums brought up these quotes, many of which were stated while the Constitution was being ratified. All sources are stated.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson, proposed Virginia constitution, June 1776. Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)
"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, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764, pp 87-88.
"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, During the Massachusetts U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at the individual discretion, in private self-defense." John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787-88
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, during Virginia's ratification convention, June 4, 1788 (From J. Elliott, Debates in the General State Conventions 425 (3rd ed. 1937).
Especially these last 2:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of people, trained in arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." James Madison, I Annuals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)
That was almost word for word the phrasing of the 2nd Amendment, which makes our 4th President essentially the author of said amendment. But he also had this further to say in "The Federalist", in which he DEFINES what it means:
"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison, The Federalist No. 46
That was straight from the author of the amendment himself....
I think the matter is settled, regardless how the Supreme Court decides.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-11-14 10:44 pm (UTC)Where were the 2nd Amendment supporters when the Patriot Acts were passed? When Habeas Corpus became a thing of the past? Defending Dick Cheney's irresponsible gun handling, that's where. Disgusting.
I don't have a problem with responsible adults owning guns. I have a major problem with a gang of thugs running the government.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-16 08:05 am (UTC)But the fact of the matter is that Madison intended the 2nd Amendment to be a deterrant against the government becoming tyrannical, and despite the Supreme Court majority being GOP-appointed now, the NRA is watching this case like a hawk, because they know that the Bush apointees may very well try to gun grab.
It always takes time for the populace at large to realize what is happening, and many gun rights supporters have individually known about this possibility for years, it's just the collective force of them that has taken a while to wake up.
A rebuttal.
Date: 2007-11-26 04:47 am (UTC)The Founding Fathers had no possible way of knowing how guns would fit in society today, thus their views are hardly applicable.
You know why the Constitution has "amendments?" Because it can be *amended.* it can be *changed* and so it should to reflect the needs of today's society.
The Constitution is not supposed to be set in stone. Anyone who sees it and the ideas shaping it as sacrosanct, infallible and/or unchangeable has COMPLETELY missed the point.
Specifically in the case of guns, reviewing the quotes shows they intended guns for two reasons:
a)To make the militia and the people one and the same for the purposes of national defense.
Is this needed? Is the handgun in the glovebox for defending your country? I doubt it.
b)Protection from a tyrannical government.
In the unlikely event that the U.S. government becomes "tyrannical" enough to necessitate armed resistance, that wouldn't last long. Friendly foreign forces (Who can be trusted with guns, unlike Joe Public) would be there to fight that in no time. After all, isn't it the job of "free" countries to fight oppression by other governments? Isn't that a big part of U.S. foreign policy?
A few things to think about.
Re: A rebuttal.
Date: 2007-11-26 04:52 am (UTC)If anything, a tyrannical US Government is more likely than EVER in this day and age!
Also look at the last two quotes. I think that firmly shows us why Madison phrased the amendment the way he did.
EDIT: If a new amendment passes, then I have no real legal arguments. I won't like it though. But for right now, I think it's pretty clear. Everywhere else the Constitution mentions "the people" it means ALL United States Citizens. Why should the Second Amendment's mention of "the people" be taken as any different?
Re: A rebuttal.
Date: 2007-11-27 01:02 am (UTC)Re: A rebuttal.
Date: 2007-11-27 01:37 am (UTC)The government *isn't* being prevented from doing those things...that's the problem, and more rights atrocities are likely on the way. Things have been escalating for a while.
The system is failing the people big time, and when the system is broken, you can't solve things by using it. The checks and balances are so far out of whack it's ridiculous.
One of these days, unless Congress can learn a new trick besides "roll over, play dead, and give Bush what he wants", it just may come to some sort of armed conflict.
Remember what happened in 1776...and *they* took up their arms for far less atrocities than what we're seeing now.
Re: A rebuttal.
Date: 2007-11-26 04:57 am (UTC)Re: A rebuttal.
Date: 2007-11-26 05:01 am (UTC)Anyone who leaves an unsecured gun in the car did NOT take their training.
How bout no guns for stupid people? Oh I forget, we have that, its called background checks. Pity criminals don;t have to take them huh?
Re: A rebuttal.
Date: 2007-11-26 09:11 am (UTC)Edited to remove bad firearm etiquette.
And yes, in the long run it is. Gun crime is still a serious problem in DC, the only problem is, the common law-abiding citizens can't defend themselves with comparable weaponry. Imagine that across the entire country. Just about every urban area would erupt into chaos because the people can't protect themselves, and the crooks KNOW it and TAKE ADVANTAGE of it!
Yes, that threatens the safety of our country by threatening the safety of its PEOPLE, the lifeblood of the country! It's right there in the Preamble: "WE THE PEOPLE" defining who is supposed to ultimately be in charge of this country!
Re: A rebuttal.
Date: 2009-02-26 09:14 am (UTC)No, that's a big part of US propaganda.