StoppingPower.net Forums
Home
Forums
Commentary
H&S
About
StoppingPower.net Forums

StoppingPower.net Forums - 2A roots are old English law
StoppingPower.net Forums
StoppingPower.net Forums
Forums Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ | Invite a friend
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Other
 Miscellaneous
 2A roots are old English law
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

gw
Advanced Member

4784 Posts

Posted - September 15 2019 :  10:58:13 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The Declaration of Causes of Taking Up Arms" passed by the Continental Congress cited Gen. Gage's perfidy in seizing the Bostonians' arms. The arms seizures were a major cause of the Revolution.

"While still British subjects, colonial Americans recognized the “right to bear arms” as a natural right. These are rights granted by God or nature that cannot be restricted by any government or official. The concept did not begin with the Bill of Rights, but was enforced in the psyche of 18th century colonists and rooted in English history from whence they came. During the Middle Ages and through the 17th century, every Englishman was not only allowed to own a firearm, but they were expected to own one. The individual right to own a gun had been settled in 1689. Further, it was understood that this referred to an individual, not a collective right as some argue. The British Declaration Bill of Rights in 1689 listed among other grievances, the British throne’s violating the individual right to own firearms.

From contemporaneous notes from Parliament, the debate centered on the 1662 Militia Act which focused on the confiscation of private arms.

Hence, the 1689 Declaration did not create a new individual right. It recognized a previously established natural right and it specifically addressed the individual right to bear arms. Parliament, in fact, specifically considered and rejected any language about a “common defense,” or collective right. The great British legal authority, Blackstone, described the right as absolute and belonging to the individual."

The Second Amendment clarfies that

yes, a well regulated militia is necessary, but it will not be used to infringe on an individual's right to bear arms.

"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."

Insert the word but after State and the meaning is clear....

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not..."

Edited by - gw on September 15 2019 11:08:11 AM

Ace
Advanced Member

USA
5663 Posts

Posted - September 15 2019 :  1:51:30 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
If my history memory serves correctly, the comma between 'Militia' and 'being'--the first comma--isn't in the original.
Seems to me, if we read the 2nd as intended, it requires that a militia be established to protect the 'security of a free State'; as in every city/town/village should be required to have a 'citizens group' armed and trained, with regular drills and practice, in case they are needed for that 'security'. A standing army is not a militia. Ace

Give me $1 every time a Liberal lies, I'll give you $5 every time one tells the truth; I'll end up a wealthy man, you'll end up broke.
If pro-gunners are as murderous as anti-gunners claim, why are there so many anti-gunners still running their mouths?
Go to Top of Page

gw
Advanced Member

4784 Posts

Posted - September 15 2019 :  3:38:33 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The founders feared a Government with a large standing army, Englishmen fought wars to end the use of "professional armies"

And while they preferred militias, militias had been used against them as well

The Militia Act passed by a royalist parliament in 1662 perpetuated the trend started under the republic but granted the militia even broader powers to disarm Englishmen. Any two deputies could search for and seize the arms of anyone they regarded as "dangerous to the Peace of the Kingdom."

The British Bill of Rights 1689 sought to protect the "individuals" right to self defense, apart from the collective's need for a militia.

Those rights were included in the Virginia Constitution, our Bill of Rights are drawn from that document.

The problem is Americans don't know English history

When the anti gun crowd make the arguement the Second Amendment protects the militia, they are confused.

It's exactly the opposite, 2A protects the individual from being disarmed by the militia as directed by the government/King.

The wording of the Amendment was perfectly clear to the founders, they knew English history, painfully so.......

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not..."

Edited by - gw on September 15 2019 4:17:09 PM
Go to Top of Page

jle3030
Advanced Member

USA
5527 Posts

Posted - September 15 2019 :  6:26:05 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
A very useful history lesson! Thanks. I'll be using that argument for certain.

Jeff

jle3030
Go to Top of Page

gw
Advanced Member

4784 Posts

Posted - September 15 2019 :  7:34:55 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
We're approaching the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution, Sep 17.

Two years later, the media explains the new Constitution, imagine the excitement...

"The Federal Gazette and Philadelphia Evening Post of Thursday, June 18, 1789, in language reminiscent of the English legacy, explained to readers the purpose of the article which became the Second Amendment:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed ... in their right to keep and bear their private arms."


"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not..."

Edited by - gw on September 15 2019 7:39:11 PM
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
StoppingPower.net Forums © 2002-16 StoppingPower.net, Inc. Go To Top Of Page
Thispagewasgeneratedin0.09seconds. Snitz Forums 2000