"The great object is that every man be armed ... Everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386

"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped;…" Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers # 29.

"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature." Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772.

"...one loves to possess arms, tho[ugh] they hope never to have occasion for them." Thomas Jefferson in a letter to George Washington, June 19, 1796. ME 9:341 Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (Lipscomb and Bergh, editors) 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed., reissued 1967). (Letter to Peter Carr, his 15-year-old nephew, August 19, 1785)

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy." Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778.

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them …" Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775. I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894).

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They 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 to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764. Chapter. Whole Book.

"Great part of the happiness of mankind depends upon those means, by which the innocent may be saved from their cruel invaders: among which the opportunities they have of defending themselves may be reckoned the chief." William Wollaston, The Religion of Nature 132 (1724). Cited in That Every Man Be Armed by Stephen Halbrook (Page 209, footnote 248). This book is part of the SAF library.

[the British] told us we shall have no more guns, no powder to use, and kill our wolves and other game, nor to send to you for you to kill your victuals with, and to get skins to trade with us, to buy your blankets and what you want. How can you live without powder and guns? But we hope to supply you soon with both, of our own making." Samuel Adams to the Mohawk Indians, III S. Adams, Writings 213.

"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion… in private self-defense …" John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788)

is it still illegal in Akron to murder someone? thats an old rule too. Society has changed but murder is still murder.


ever read the federalist papers? is the why behind the constitution, written by the founders. THEY ARE ALL QUITE SPECIFIC IN WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO AND WISE WAY BEYOND THIER TIME. if you doubt that... you havent rread the federalist papers.

Yes.. I have. Not all of it.. but some.
For instance...

'"If a single member should attempt to usurp the supreme authority, he could not be supposed to have an equal authority and credit in all the confederate states. Were he to have too great influence over one, this would alarm the rest. Were he to subdue a part, that which would still remain free might oppose him with forces independent of those which he had usurped and overpower him before he could be settled in his usurpation.

"Should a popular insurrection happen in one of the confederate states the others are able to quell it. Should abuses creep into one part, they are reformed by those that remain sound. The state may be destroyed on one side, and not on the other; the confederacy may be dissolved, and the confederates preserve their sovereignty.

"As this government is composed of small republics, it enjoys the internal happiness of each; and with respect to its external situation, it is possessed, by means of the association, of all the advantages of large monarchies."

Which leads me to believe that the designers of the Constitution believed the militias were a State (small republic) responsibility... and to be governed by that States Government. Therefore.. the term... 'Well regulated militia'.

The "regulated" argument has been beaten to death long ago. The meaning (which is longer used) was well-equipped, and trained in military discipline, as in calling troops "regulars", as opposed to "conscripts" or "volunteers".
The basis behind the 2nd Amendment is that all men, 16-60, were automatically members of the "militia", and therefore were held personally responsible for their own military discipline, training and readiness for war. This is why the 2nd Amendment says it in such an ipso facto manner, "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.". Also note that "State" is considered to refer to "a condition of existence", as in "State of The Union", or at the most liberal interpretation "The Whole Country".
The confusing misinterpretation caused by Yasky's "Comma Controversy" is also easily defeated by reviewing the actual copies of the 2nd Amendment which were ratified and then certified by the individual states. The parchment copy on display in the Library of Congress (which has the extra comma added between "Militia" and "being") was never signed by anyone, and is not a certified document. Without this extra comma, the intent of the declaration is made even more clear.

It's all been covered in previous posts lording. Save your sanity, and be well with the fact that you actually took the time to understand our consitution, and the writings of our founding fathers. You will just here the same regurgitated argument over, and over. You may as well beat your head against a brick wall sir

hi M'Lord!!!!

Finally.. a direct answer that makes some sense. Thank-you.
I already know the meaning of 'state'.
I still have my doubts though.. considering that the Constitution and Bill of Rights was written by the elite class of the time... was all inclusive. I highly doubt that the land owners of the time would have enjoyed the possibility of the working class and poor becoming organized and armed.
Even if you look at some of the laws passed just 20 to 50 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified...Concerning concealed weapons and wearing sidearms in public... Many of those, stood unchallanged.


By the way lording.. I come up with nothing, searching any and all variables of 'Comma Controversy' and 'Yasky's'
Is it possible to point me to some evidence of this?

Dude! We get it.. You are pissed at lilith and I. I'm still not entirely sure why and really don't much care anymore.
Let it go... I have.. Lilith has...
My God.. You'd think I called your Mother a whore.

Well met, m'Lady!

My apologies - I left an "s" out of his name.

It's a reference to a brief filed with the US Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, by David Yassky (as amicus curiae) of Brooklyn Law School, in the case of US v. Emerson.

I did find some data on the comma question. Most all of them were references to pro gun blogs.... Nothing that appeared to be from a legal opinion or stance... Yet. I'm still looking though.

I did come up with an article by James Madison brought to the floor. It stated:


'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.'

And a report by John Vining of Delaware to a review committee of 11 of the 13 colonies.. Only because Rhode Island and North Carolina had not yet ratified the Constitution. It said....

'A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.'

Then.. after deliberation... The House modified the amendment.

'A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.'

Not long after.. The Senate struck the conscientious objector clause and adopted:

'A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'

Thanks.. I'll look into it.

The opinions of one man.. or 10 men.. do not make a law in this country. The opinions of men written in journals or books are not law. Not our Constitution.

Agreed.. These men were brilliant beyond their time. Some of them might have believed in a free and armed state... They may not have as well... Either way? What is written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is law. It was agreed upon by many with differing approaches to the same goal.

It was not a document that was written and signed. It was deliberated and discussed at length.. Until such time that a compromise was met and then ratified by representatives of the people. Then it had to go before the Senate.. and completely rehashed again...

In that.. What George Washington wrote in his Journal? Or Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton wrote in theirs? Only gives us their opinion.. Not the bodies opinion. Not the will of the people or the States the representatives resided in.

Although the journals are of great historic value and offer insight on what individuals were thinking? They are not law.

In the grand scheme of things? They matter just a bit more then my opinion or yours.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By the way... Lordling.. I did find a legal referance to the case. I downloaded it and it will take some time to study.

Thanks.

All that you say is true, but since our system of laws is interpretive by nature, and so many years have passed, encompassing dramatic cultural changes (including the obvious etymological evolution of our language), these documents are indispensable in recapturing the original intent of the drafters of the Constitution. You cannot interpret correctly that which you no longer have the basis for understanding.

Not only was the 2nd Amendment one of the most debated, but likely also the most passionately argued. Many of the new government's equally new appointees were vehemently against the right to bear arms, for the reasons (among others) that you have stated. This makes it even more apparent how great the debt is that we owe to those who championed this specific right, literally fighting for it "tooth & nail".

As I have said before, in other threads related to this topic, the government exercises power at our pleasure. "We the people" instituted the government, and we can dissolve it. I am not advocating anarchy, but rather the observation that the only thing that makes any law valid is the people's willingness to conform to it. If a law is somehow passed that is disdained by the overwhelming majority of the People, then it is not a lawful edict, despite it's support by your "duly elected representative(s)". A government which no longer serves the will of the People is a government which has outlived it's usefulness. Natural Law trumps any law imposed by any government.

"The opinions of one man.. or 10 men do not make law in this country."? I suppose that's true, unless you happen to be GW Bush, or the US Supreme Court (9 justices).

Don't worry, once Clinton is in office guns won't be so easy to own.

my ass

Think back to when Slick Willy was in Office. There were alot of gun laws made. NONE of which save peoples lives.

I have no doubt of any of this. Not in the least.
However... The ones that discussed the topic at hand? To say they were entirely for 'the people'. I don't think that is likely.
We like to believe this country is for the people.. and often reference our forefathers to make that point. Why not? That is what was taught in schools I attended.
However... Now.. I believe that this country was always about business and the elite. Same as any other..Just a bit different. The people were tools as they still are in many ways.
Given that? Why would the elite arm us without governorship? It serves no purpose to them....
As a Union... We were in charge of ourselves... in respect to the Colonies. Each were self governing. That was a fact of life in that time. Even after the Constitution was signed and delivered... Two of the Colonies would not ratify for quite some time. In other words.. The Union was a group of little Republics in many ways. Each was heard by the elite of those Republics.
I doubt that they intended to arm all of their constituency without regulation.
Given the fact that it was impossible to do it.
The only ones who could afford to be armed with modern weapons were the elite... When weapons became available to the poor and working class? They started gun control.

The proponents of keeping and bearing arms continue to argue the Constitution.. as it is written. Thinking our forefathers had our best interests in mind. Saying that gun control is unconstitutional

In my opinion? We would be better off refuting the Constitution.. As it is written.

If you want the right to bear arms of any sort, anywhere? Then you should be fighting to amend the 2nd amendment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I got to go work in the mountains now. Help a friend pull a piece of equipment off of a logging site. Hopefully I will be back late tonight.

Ya know....just to throw a log on the fire - I just had a random thought:

The only amendment to the constitution made and then repealed was Prohibition.... does the fact that happened not mean the consitutional amendments are fallible, based on the times of society... and subject to updates to reflect those changes?

So why could not the 2nd Admendment be Amended?

because the first ten ammendments are the bill of RIGHTS

they are not just amendments

and you answered your own question

what did Prohibition accomplish

creation of multi million dollar crime rings

Prohibition never works things should be legalized and taxed