Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
15. Not a fan of 17th and 18th century literature, I take it?
Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:18 PM
Dec 2012
If the Founding fathers had no problem saying what they mean, and they meant for people to universally have the right to own and carry weapons for whatever purpose, they would have said just that, rather than couching it in a phrase prefaced with a discussion of the militia.


You mean, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" ?? Like that?

If they'd truly meant it to apply only to militias, why did these same guys in their respective states write things like:

[div class='excerpt']The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution. It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791. Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Delaware: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Alabama: The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1819, guarantees "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state"

There's no logical way to reconcile that.

eta: Additionally, there are enough historical writings from the founders at the time to support my position, if you'd care to see them, but nobody I've asked has had anything from that time asserting otherwise.

Many folks mention FP29, but then fail to connect it to the second amendment in a way that is logically consistent. As I mention above, FP29 is one side of an argument about how best to manage the militia, and doesn't touch on the scope of the right that the second amendment protects.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Where are the facts? ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #1
I have a hard time wrapping my head around yellerpup Dec 2012 #3
I'd actually EXPECT tham to do precisely that. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #8
Why sure, after losing so many lives in the Revolution yellerpup Dec 2012 #31
The idea, I believe, was to have a well armed and responsive populace letemrot Dec 2012 #34
You seriously thing they wouldn't have protected the very method they'd just used? Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #40
Here you go.. letemrot Dec 2012 #17
Everyone have the same talking points to share? yellerpup Dec 2012 #20
I don't trust them.. letemrot Dec 2012 #23
I called it a talking point because yellerpup Dec 2012 #25
Oh you have.. letemrot Dec 2012 #26
Are there any regulations you feel would be acceptable yellerpup Dec 2012 #29
I am sorry.. Your post wasn't about the founding fathers? letemrot Dec 2012 #32
Then alert on me if you feel I done you wrong. yellerpup Dec 2012 #35
and I didn't respond to the op. letemrot Dec 2012 #39
I didn't ask a question in that post either. yellerpup Dec 2012 #42
Oh ok..,. letemrot Dec 2012 #43
The founders had just finished sarisataka Dec 2012 #24
Background to the "well regulated militia" .... Toronto Dec 2012 #5
FP 29 was a treatise on how best to maintain the militia.. so? X_Digger Dec 2012 #6
I believe you have to take it within the context of the language of the amendment Toronto Dec 2012 #7
I can't see 'ensures' as a valid substitution.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #9
You ignore the fact that the right to bear arms Toronto Dec 2012 #10
Commas and semi-colons when there *were* no rules of grammar at the time? X_Digger Dec 2012 #11
The first English grammar, Pamphlet for Grammar by William Bullokar, Toronto Dec 2012 #13
Not a fan of 17th and 18th century literature, I take it? X_Digger Dec 2012 #15
In defense of himself (self, family, home) and the State. yellerpup Dec 2012 #18
All are valid exercises of the right, yes. (protection of self, family, home, state) X_Digger Dec 2012 #19
Nope. n/t yellerpup Dec 2012 #21
Sigh.... Toronto Dec 2012 #28
Thanks for your contributions to this thread. yellerpup Dec 2012 #30
My pleasure - I also appreciate sanity... Toronto Dec 2012 #33
Yes, I think the time is now. yellerpup Dec 2012 #37
I am not afraid to go to the mall, or send my kids to school letemrot Dec 2012 #44
I salute your bravery. yellerpup Dec 2012 #45
Well then just live.. letemrot Dec 2012 #46
The kids at Sandy Hook went to school on December 14th yellerpup Dec 2012 #47
I am glad you are not afraid... letemrot Dec 2012 #49
Then you missed my point yellerpup Dec 2012 #50
Yes BobbyBoring Dec 2012 #51
Time for change. yellerpup Dec 2012 #52
Ignoring of course that the Congress had NO power to re-create a new militia. jmg257 Dec 2012 #22
Doesn't the existence of the National Guard Toronto Dec 2012 #2
I believe we are covered yellerpup Dec 2012 #4
No. letemrot Dec 2012 #27
Yes. Zoeisright Dec 2012 #38
Actually it does not.. letemrot Dec 2012 #41
The State Military Reserves have developed Toronto Dec 2012 #48
You forgot the FACT that the Militia Laws passed by Congress in support jmg257 Dec 2012 #12
Yes, and the State Militias eventually evolved into the National Guard Toronto Dec 2012 #14
Luckily - otherwise the Militia declaration would have more merrit, and jmg257 Dec 2012 #16
K&R smirkymonkey Dec 2012 #36
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Gun Control Now - Fact Dr...»Reply #15