Quotes, Misquotes, Out-of-Context Cites, Hoaxes
by Steven Krulick
PO Box 467, Ellenville NY 12428
© 2009, Kryolux Inc
Whenever those who can't deal with the challenge to their cherished and stubbornly-held beliefs about the 2nd Amendment feel "out of ammo," the dreary and predictable tactic is to go to some pro-gun site, where they can conveniently cut & paste the same pre-digested boilerplate list of "Founders' Quotes" that are copied from site to site, from the NRA on down, but with nary any attempt to determine which are REAL quotes, which are ACCURATE quotes, which are FULL-IN-CONTEXT quotes, and which even mean what they think they mean.
My introduction to 2nd Amen studies BEGAN with getting hit with one of these "walls of quotes" and a gut feeling that some didn't even sound like the supposed authors' styles or beliefs, others seemed chopped... and truncated... too much, others seemed irrelevant to the issue of the meaning and purpose OF the 2nd Amen, and still others seemed to lack a surrounding context to determine WHY the quote even exists at all. Tracking down the ORIGINAL versions often took wading through hundreds of the bogus versions, as these bogus versions were the ones that got repeatedly posted to hundreds of sites without any attempt to determine IF the cite were valid or properly framed.
And in EVERY case, the quotes simply didn't hold up as real or accurate or relevant, didn't support the claims of the hoplophile apologists, and raised questions about the integrity and scholarship of the spewers of these quote lists, the sites that post them, and those "responsible" for the original distortions or disingenuous fabrications.
Here are some of the most egregious of the bogus or misrepresentative quotes, by supposed author, in rough chronological order.-----
"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"
Occasionally this phony quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson is given with the following citation: Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950). The publication exists, but the quote does not. And the editor's correct name is Julian P. Boyd, not C.J. Boyd. In other cases, this quote is added to the end of a proven Jefferson quote "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms..." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344.
HOWEVER, HE DIDN'T SAY IT! IT'S BOGUS! IT'S MADE UP!
(For what Jefferson REALLY said about the reason for and meaning of the 2nd Amen, see reference to the Priestley letter at Purpose of the 2nd Amendment.)
But even the partially true cite is not the whole story:
This is NOT the same as what he ACTUALLY said, in context:
"No Freeman shall be debarred the use of arms in his own lands or tenements."
AND it is NOT complete. It is therefore a MISQUOTE, rather than being a quote. Misquoting and partial quoting out of context is typical of hoplophile pseudoscholarship, and one merely has to GO to the URL site where these bastardized quotes are compiled to see a whole string of similar pettifoggery, a whole series of INACCURATE, INCOMPLETE, and OUT-OF-CONTEXT misquotes that misrepresent what each author was actually saying.
Sloppy research leads to sloppy presentation, and hoplophiles have been doing this consistently.
Back to the cite: Incomplete, inaccurate, out of context, never enacted.
Therefore, irrelevant and misleading.
This 1776 "mis"quote is NOT a reference to the 2nd Amen, written 13 years later! Therefore, it obviously has nothing to do with what TJ had to say about the 2nd Amen and what it meant, or what Madison meant by "bear arms."
This PROPOSAL -- "No Freeman shall be debarred the use of arms in his own lands or tenements" -- by Jefferson for the 1776 Virginia Constitution WAS REJECTED; it did not make it into the VA Const, nor was it used later in the US Const. BTW, most leave out the part that restricted use of arms to one's OWN lands; even then the proposal was still left out. Also, "the use of arms" is not the same as "bear arms" which is a military expression that means to serve as a soldier in the militia or army.
What WAS passed was the VA Declaration of Rights, which became part of the 1776 VA Const; Article 13 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights provides:
"That a well-regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; that Standing Armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."
There is no mention of an individual right to "keep and bear arms," as Adams and Madison meant it, or, indeed any "individual" right at all, certainly not one independent of a well-regulated Militia. The focus of the article is on the role of the militia versus a standing army.
As for the later US Constitution ratification debates, there is no mention in the Virginia debates of individuals carrying weapons, or of the need to assure individuals that the federal government would not confiscate their arms. The debate was solely in the context of whether the government would affirmatively provide arms for the militia.
"Then there's the original Virginia Bill of Rights, the first adopted, that expressed both the colonists' allegiance to the idea of a citizen militia and their fear of standing armies:
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Reprinted in Sources of Our Liberties 312 (Perry & Cooper ed. 1959)
There is little doubt that this provision of the Virginia Bill of Rights was concerned exclusively with the distribution of military power and the proper role of the military in a free society. The language makes no suggestion of a right to bear arms.
[In fact, the word "right" or "rights" isn't mentioned AT ALL! So THEY considered it A RIGHT, of ITSELF, that a well regulated militia for State defense merely EXISTED!]
The first state to adopt such language was Pennsylvania, which did so as part of its constitutional provision addressing military matters:
[Let me repeat THAT: "which did so as part of its constitutional provision addressing military matters"]
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Other state constitutions proceeded to adopt variations of either the Virginia or Pennsylvania models. The states which included "right to bear arms" language did so in the context of provisions dealing with military matters.
[Let me repeat THAT: "did so in the context of provisions dealing with military matters"]
...Thus, there is no indication from the history of the 2nd Amendment that the Founders were seeking a broad guarantee of the individual right to own firearms for any purpose. On the contrary, the expressed intention of the framers was to guarantee that state militias remained armed and viable, and the "right to keep and bear arms" must be understood as implementing that purpose. The implication of this intention is that the constitutionality of a statute regulating firearms should turn on whether the statute affects firearms in such a way as to adversely affect a state's ability to raise and maintain an armed "well-regulated militia."
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed unless they try to take it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Another HOAX quote! TJ NEVER said this! And one can't show WHERE or WHEN, hence the name without a place, or date!
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
THE PEOPLE COLLECTIVELY! THAT idea is repeated over and over. Care to show a cite that REQUIRES EACH AND EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHATSOEVER "to be at all times armed"?
When established as a well regulated militia; otherwise you could justify insurrection and mobs.
That's what the militia does and is: it is at all times armed!
Can you point to any law that REQUIRED each and every individual person to own a gun and carry it "at all times"? (Only the PEOPLE in the collective sense can do THAT, "at all times"!)
It's as ludicrous as saying that in:
"That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead."
"bear arms" here means simply "carry guns"!
THE PEOPLE is here THE WHOLE PEOPLE, the collective enfranchised body politic of freemen as the populus armatus, and NOT each and every individual sleeping with guns under their pillows! HE is referring to the jus militiae right of THE WHOLE PEOPLE, acting in concert, to democratically organize and control their military function, maintain their permanent readiness and upkeep as a militia (as opposed to armies being "raised" and "deponed"), and keep the military under civilian control.
NOT each and every individual, but THE PEOPLE AS A WHOLE! And not necessarily that each had a gun, which in his time was perhaps 10% of the population, as proven by the very returns of militia HE demanded getting! It meant that THE PEOPLE AT LARGE maintain and control THEIR ever-ready well-regulated militias to defend against both foreign AND domestic enemies, and prevent the need for a professional army to get large enough to be a threat ("standing armies... the bane of liberty").
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341
First, let's even PRESUME this was about "GUNS"; this still wouldn't have anything to do with the 2nd Amen.
Irrelevant to the 2nd Amen, and has nothing to do with Madison's concept of "bearing arms." So wealthy landowners and slaveholders like Tom and George loved to collect expensive weapons. What does THAT have to do with anything, particularly a well regulated militia?
"To possess arms" has nothing to do with "to keep and bear arms"! The first is what one person does in personal ownership; the second is what THE PEOPLE do as the collective body politic, that is, they maintain the permanent readiness and upkeep of the state militia ("to keep arms" as John Adams meant it), and they render military service in person if qualified ("to bear arms" as Madison meant it in his original draft)
The founders loved pets too, but they saw no reason to protect the rights of pet owners. This is irrelevant to the 2nd Amen.
However, it turns out this line had NOTHING to do with firearms at all! It was a metaphor in which Jefferson was telling Washington that in a political debate one should have rhetorical and even blackmailing "weapons" at the ready to use against political opponents, but that it's better if one doesn't have to rely on such!
Excerpt from Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, June 19, 1796 (Jefferson is pleading with Washington to "arm" him with a copy of a report he thinks he might need for political defense. He's not really talking about guns at all.):
"While on the subject of papers, permit me to ask one from you. You remember the difference of opinion between Hamilton and Knox on the one part, and myself on the other, on the subject of firing on the Little Sarah, and that we had exchanged opinions and reasons in writing. On your arrival in Philadelphia I delivered you a copy of my reasons, in the presence of Colonel Hamilton. On our withdrawing, he told me he had been so much engaged that he had not been able to prepare a copy of his and General Knox's for you, and that if I would send you the one he had given me, he would replace it in a few days. I immediately sent it to you, wishing you should see both sides of the subject together. I often after applied to both the gentlemen, but could never obtain another copy. I have often thought of asking this one, or a copy of it, back from you, but have not before written on subjects of this kind to you. Though I do not know that it will ever be of the least importance to me, yet one loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. They possess my paper in my own handwriting. It is just I should possess theirs. The only thing amiss is, that they should have left me to seek a return of the paper, or a copy of it, from you"
See page 339 of this: http://www.constitution.org/tj/jeff09.txt
"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 to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book, 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
Bogus! TJ only recorded this cite from Cesare Beccaria; it's NOT his words! There's no reason to believe he agreed with this simply because he wrote down someone else's words. But even if he did, in 1774, so what? What's the point?
Sheesh! Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764. That it is a highly chopped-up with ellipses is also suspect for conveying what was originally said and intended.
Quoting what someone else thinks about something doesn't mean one even agrees with it; hell, I write down things I disagree with all the time in order to refute later. But the 2nd Amen is NOT about laws forbidding the "carrying of arms" (something that routinely was done to blacks in Jefferson's day), but about "bearing arms" -- what Madison clearly indicated was militia service. So this is irrelevant to the 2nd Amen, and has nothing to do with Madison's concept of "bearing arms." Said during revolutionary, not constitutional times. Hell, it predates the Revolution! People DO change their minds, too!
And there's nothing there about a "personal right to gun ownership" under the Constitution, is there?
Therefore, it obviously has nothing to do with what TJ had to say about the second amendment since it was said around 15 years earlier! For THAT, read the letter to Priestley!
The 2nd Amen ISN'T ABOUT GUNS! It's about the MILITIA, and we KNOW this because TJ himself SAID SO!
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." -- Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365
This is about the MILITIA, as the substitute for a standing army, Jefferson's main reason for DEMANDING the Constitution contain a bill of rights provision on THAT!
The "Second Amendment" is a republican-insprired "declaratory clause" that confirms that because the well regulated militias of the states are necessary to their security, the people, as the enfranchised body politic, from which those militias are drawn, has the right to democratically organize, control, maintain, man and arm those militias, free from fear the fed government will FAIL to provide for arming them, as the Constitution mandates, but as the anti-feds feared would happen, thus weakening them or destroying them, and building a standing army, "the bane of liberty," on the ruins! It has NOTHING to do with "personal gun rights" independent of militia service! NOTHING!
Jefferson's seventh letter regarding his contribution to the BoR process was written to Dr. Joseph Priestley, June 19, 1802. It, like the other six letters (written 12/20/87, 2/7/88, 2/12/88, 7/31/88, 3/13/89, and 3/18/89), can be found by date at:
"One passage, in the paper you enclosed me, must be corrected. It is the following, ` ` and all say it was yourself more than any other individual, that planned and established it i. e., the Constitution. I was in Europe when the Constitution was planned, and never saw it till after it was established. On receiving it I wrote strongly to Mr. Madison, urging the want of provision for the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the substitution of militia for a standing army, and an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union. He accordingly moved in the first session of Congress for these amendments, which were agreed to and ratified by the States as they now stand. This is all the hand I had in what related to the Constitution."
Notice, as mentioned, the purpose of the 2nd Amen was ONLY "the substitution of militia for a standing army," with no mention of "guns" or "individual rights"! Again, in EACH letter, each time he brings up his concerns for why a BoR is desired, the ONLY concern he ever brings up regarding what was to become the 2nd Amen is his concern over "standing armies" and NEVER gun ownership per se or any individual rights in that regard!
According to TJ, Madison submitted an amendment for "the substitution of militia for a standing army" and another for "an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union"! And it was THESE [purposes behind the] amendments "which were agreed to and ratified by the States as they now stand."
Here's what TJ said to Washington, September 9, 1792:
"Of this the few letters I wrote on the subject (not half a dozen I believe) will be a proof; and for my own satisfaction and justification, I must tax you with the reading of them when I return to where they are. You will there see that my objection to the Constitution was that it wanted a bill of rights securing freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom from standing armies, trial by jury, and a constant habeas corpus act. Colonel Hamilton's was that it wanted a king and house of lords. The sense of America has approved my objection and added the bill of rights, not the king and lords."
Again, WHAT did TJ ask for? A right for any person whatsoever to own and carry guns? NO!
FREEDOM FROM STANDING ARMIES! America APPROVED HIS objection and added the bill of rights which, clearly, included THOSE protections HE LISTED! Personal gun rights simply not to be found there!
"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security." Thomas Jefferson
When discussions during the early national period turned to the preservation of liberty, then, classical assumptions about the citizen's responsibility to bear arms in the interest of the common good quickly came to the fore. "For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so," Jefferson reminded Congress in 1808 in language that summarized the republican principles embodied in the Second Amendment, "a well organized and armed militia is their best security." No one argued that the individual had a right to bear arms outside the ranks of the militia. To the contrary, bearing arms outside the framework of the established militia structure immediately provoked fears for the constitutional stability of the Republic. (Lawrence Cress)
"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] 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 to your walks." -- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.
Wow! WHAT does THIS have to do with the meaning and purpose of the 2nd Amen? NOTHING! It says nothing about the meaning of "bear arms," "well regulated," "militia," or the rights of THE PEOPLE!
Guffaw! Here, let me fill in some of your blanks for you:
First check out the DATE of this snippet from a letter to his nephew:
--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407
This has NOTHING to do with the reasons for why the 2nd Amen was sought, or what TJ thought about it, which was the question of the "security of a free state" NOT strolling for exercise!
Irrelevant to the 2nd Amen, and has nothing to do with Madison's concept of "bearing arms." Why do hoplophiles NEVER get tired of bringing up these hoary and immaterial cites?
Could any of you please point out where he's talking about individual rights or the 2nd Amen or "bearing arms"?
I am sure if Tommy boy had access to a Jetski or a hang-glider, he'd be advising we enjoy those instead. He'd also advise getting it on with your mistress/slave, if you were wealthy enough to afford one.
Again, there's no context for this, but it predates the 2nd Amen by half a decade. Carrying guns is NOT the same as bearing arms, which is what the 2nd Amen protects.
So? For those WEALTHY enough to have guns, and property large enough to take walks in, it was a contemporary hobby of the aristocratic American class. THIS has NOTHING to do with the purposes and intents of the Constitution and BOR, which NEVER mentions "gun" at all! "Bearing arms" is about the militia and military organization, period. Again, the 2nd Amen didn't and doesn't PROHIBIT private gun ownership, nor does it GUARANTEE IT; it is SILENT on that point, because it ISN'T about GUNS!
Suppose the following sentences came after the one cited:
"As to developing Arms and upper Body, I advise the Bench press using free Weights. The freedom of the Press is that it allows for the Infinite hand placement along the Bar, and extended range of motion of Shoulders and Limbs, once you bare Arms, allowing attack from various angles for maximum growth. Judicious use of this Force, applied regularly, will keep Arms toned and strong."
Well, I can see all kinds of opinions lurking there! And all about the future government! Behold:
"As to developing Arms (clearly about creating a national armory!) and upper Body (Aha, he is for a Senate to balance the House!), I advise the Bench (Hmmm, the President should make recommendations to the justices on Federal matters!) press using free Weights (So, a Department of Commerce should establish uniform standards of measurement, at no charge to the public). The freedom of the Press (Behold, his opinion on the 1st Amen!) is that it allows for the Infinite (So Jefferson believes in God!) hand placement along the Bar (Not only can he advise judges, he can appoint lawyers!), and extended range (My gosh, he's already considering buying Louisiana!) of motion of Shoulders and Limbs (Look, a Transportation Dept constructing roads and trimming overhanging branches!), once you bare Arms (Well that clinches the 2nd Amen!), allowing attack from various angles (So TJ is FOR a strong standing army after all!) for maximum growth (TJ can already see manifest destiny right to the Pacific!). Judicious use of this Force (Hey, the Judicial Branch gets to command the army!), applied regularly (more proof he's for a volunteer army of applying regulars!), will keep Arms (First bare arms, now keep arms; there's almost your whole 2nd Amen!) toned and strong (Ah, a well-regulated militia for the security of a free state; there's the rest of it!)."
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms." (James Madison: Federalist Paper #46)
"[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 Papers, No. 46
What a BOGUS and disingenuous snipping of the larger context! This is NOT what Madison SAID or MEANT; it's not even an accurate quote, combining totally different sections as one, adding words never said, and leaving out critical material about WHO is armed!
It's a LYING misquote; he NEVER said this! Out of context, it completely misrepresents what he REALLY said. Madison NEVER SAID THIS! NEVER!
This 1788 essay was in context of whether to have a standing army or militia system, and to reassure those with anti-Federalist sentiments that the proposed Constitution would not lead to "the downfall of the State governments," their biggest concern! It has NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amen at all! It was written over ONE YEAR before Madison even submitted his amendments in 1789, at a time he thought adding ANY amendments to the Const was UNNECESSARY, if not downright dangerous, so there is NO WAY that this is a COMMENT ON IT!
But more importantly, this misquote leaves out WHY he said this! Properly read, in greater context, #46 clearly shows that Madison did not believe in any plausible likelihood of the militias being used to 'defend the people from our own government.' That he even mentions it at all is to debunk it as a "visionary supposition" without merit; it's all conditional and for argument's sake.
Read it IN FULL, and you see he is condescending to anyone who believes that THE PEOPLE would ever let things get to such a sorry state. Here's a good-sized chunk of context:
"The only refuge left to those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors would, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States would silently and patiently behold the gathering storm and continue to supply materials until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads must appear to everyone more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it, however, be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government: still it would not be going too far to say the State governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for the common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the late successful resistance of this country against the British arms will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments of the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny of Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."
First, this essay was about the establishment of the militia during the Constitution ratification era; there's nothing about the 2nd Amen or individual rights. Second, Madison was talking about the fact that the STATES appointed the officers of the militia, so the officers were loyal to the STATE AND THE MILITIA. It's NOT an "armed populace" of unorganized, unauthorized individual sovereigns acting "at individual discretion" (John Adams) standing up to the feds, but the OFFICIAL, WELL REGULATED STATE MILITIAS ONLY!: "... it would not be going too far to say the State governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger."
It is because the people were loyal to STATE-LED militias -- "subordinate governments, [states] to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed" -- there would be less chance for mischief ever occurring. Which is why he said it would never get to that point: "Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."
That is, it IS the existence OF state militias, and democratically-formed state governments that selected officers from the militia's own, ALL of these having the "attachment" of the PEOPLE, that would assuredly bring down tyranny, NOT just 'possession of guns' or even having citizens serving in the national army, but THE PEOPLE being democratically involved in the whole military process. BALLOTS not BULLETS!
And read the phrase again understanding what Madison meant by THE PEOPLE and by ARMS: "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." IT does NOT say "afraid to trust individual persons with guns"! (Surely, any number of European hunters and yeomen had guns, though expensive for most). It is NOT just POSSESSION that matters, but popular democratic participation IN the military function!
WHAT Madison said was "trust the PEOPLE with ARMS." Given the context surrounding this line, and Madison's consistent usage, what he was referring to was the NON-REPUBLICAN governments of Europe (the several kingdoms), did not involve THE PEOPLE AT LARGE, THE WHOLE PEOPLE as the populus armatus, in the jus militiae participation in the state's military function, WHICH THE STATE MILITIAS IN AMERICA DID, directly and through the state legislatures!
Search as you will, you will find nothing in Madison's statements personally supporting any claims of a "well armed populace as check against the ambition of a Federal Government and its standing army." In fact, he clearly supports the opposite. To suppose there is some OTHER militia Madison is referring to than the one the government has power "to call forth... when the laws are resisted," which the "well armed populace" fantasy props up as a check to government, is to misread Madison in particular, and the founding fathers in general. It is also why I have decreasing patience with people who drag out shreds of out-of-context quotes to make claims that are OPPOSITE to the general purpose and intent one may more reasonably infer from a more complete reading of the in-context material.
Madison is SO often misquoted to appear to say the opposite. It's that disingenuous and dishonest citing that gets me steamed, and actually began my whole involvement in this 2nd Amen issue. Either these guys meant what they meant in 18th century language, and said what they said in the political and social context they were immersed in, or its bad history and pseudoscholarship to prop up their tattered quotes to justify some modern day fantasy scenario of armed populace patriots acting outside of lawful government knowledge and authority vs. jack-booted government thugs.
There is NO mention of "armed individual citizens"! In fact, the phrase "bear arms" or "keep and bear arms" isn't mentioned at all! NOR is there any mention of "owning and carrying guns" independent of militia service!
No one was a member of the militia who had not joined an authorized "trained band" and been trained. So important is proper training that we often find "well-regulated" followed by an epexegetic phrase, spelling out the meaning of the term: "a well regulated militia, trained to arms" was the form Elbridge Gerry preferred for the Second Amendment. More expansively the Virginia ratifying convention suggested "a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms."
One encounters similar misrepresentations of context in other treatments of leading statements from the ratification period. Among these, the most important is the use made of James Madison's paean to the militia in The Federalist No. 46. Rare is the individual-right exposition which does not cite Madison's prediction that any attempt by a standing army to impose tyranny "would be opposed [by] a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands." It was to "be doubted," Madison continued, "whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops" as the national government could plausibly acquire. And then Madison went on to remind his readers of "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation," and which stood them in sharp contrast to the monarchies of Europe, which "are afraid to trust the people with arms."
We should not be surprised to discover that these vintage snippets are often presented independently of the larger argument they are meant to support and indeed of the very sentences in which they are embedded. Madison's purpose in this essay (and the preceding Federalist No. 45) was to compare the relative advantages that the national and state governments would enjoy in the zero-sum competition for power that Antifederalists believed the Constitution would launch, and which they further predicted would end in the consolidation of all real authority in the Union while the states withered away as effective jurisdictions of governance. Nowhere in these essays did Madison address, much less defend, the idea that the armed citizenry consisting of the body of the population would be called upon to resist the oppression emanating from the national and state governments in collusion. Instead, his concern throughout was to explain why the political affections and institutional resources that the state governments would command would render any real danger of the erosion of their authority unlikely, including the worst case scenario of military despotism that he then deemed improbable to the point of absurdity. [Page 143]
The militia was one of those resources that would rally to the support of state government, as (surprise!) the sentences from which his most frequently quoted phrases are extracted (or wrenched) make clear. Thus the sentence in which the reference to half a million armed citizens appears continues: "officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties"¾which are presumably invested in the autonomy of their state governments¾and most important, "united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence," the political ingredients that Madison understood would best determine the outcome of whatever rivalry existed between the two levels of American federalism. Similarly, the sentence distinguishing Americans from other peoples begins with the phrase "Besides the advantage of being armed," and then concludes by noting the existence of subordinate governments [that is, the states] to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form [that is, a unified nation-state, whether absolutist like France or parliamentary like Britain] can admit of.
So, too, the thought that other peoples might be less tyrannized if they were possessed of arms is a prelude to a further comment on the advantages of federalism:
But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it.
Nowhere does Madison treat the idea of an armed citizenry existing independently of any government as the best deterrent against despotism; rather, his argument throughout rests on the supposition that the militia is an institution of government, subject to its legal regulation, and the greater likelihood that the members of this militia will commit their affections and loyalty to repel any "projects of [Page 144] ambition" that the national government might undertake to pursue the "downfall of the State Governments." Tyranny in the compound republic of the United States would not take the form of a joint national-state assault on the liberties of the people. Rather, it would necessarily involve an effort by the national government to encroach upon the rights and powers of the states; and should this encroachment take place without the approval of the people's representatives, the state governments would serve as the rallying point for resistance."
Want to know what Madison THOUGHT about the 2nd Amen? HOW ABOUT HIS DRAFT of it that HE submitted to Congress himself!
The best evidence for the Second Amendment meaning of "bear arms" is in the original draft of the Amendment proposed in the First Congress by James Madison: "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."
In the last clause of this version (the conscientious objector provision), Madison clearly used the phrase "bearing arms" to refer solely to using weapons as part of military service usage. It is implausible to contend that virtually the same phrase "bear arms" should have a different, much broader meaning elsewhere in the very same sentence. (David Yassky)
There is NOTHING in the drafting and debating and passage of the 2nd Amen that speaks about "individual gun ownership" independent of militia service! It's all about state versus federal control and arming of the militia, and the virtues of militias versus standing armies, since it's a MILITIA amendment and NOT a GUN amendment!
Madison's use of the phrase "bear arms" to refer to military activities is echoed in other contemporary usages; these usages were standard at the time the Second Amendment was adopted:
New Hampshire Constitution of 1784: "No person who is conscientiously scrupulous about the lawfulness of bearing arms, shall be compelled thereto, provided he will pay an equivalent."
Rhode Island: "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; ... That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead."
Madison was not describing the civil rights of private individuals. Madison knew that militia duty was conscript duty. He expressed no reservation about the enrollment and inventory requirements of the Militia Act of 1792, enacted a few years later, which was in force when he was president and which he was under oath to faithfully execute.
Militia service was conscript duty in 1790s! IF you were an able-bodied, property-owning, 18-45-year-old white male, AND NOT a felon or mentally-defective, or a minister, teacher, mail carrier, ferryman, VP of the US (and a select bunch of other government employees!), or, in certain states, "religiously scrupulous" or able to "pay an equivalent to bear arms" in your stead, you HAD to SERVE! READ the Militia Act of 1792!
So, first, the tortured quote is out of context to say what Madison was NOT saying! Second, it was from 1788, at least a year before he wrote the 2nd Amen, at a time he was AGAINST ANY bill of rights, as being unnecessary or even dangerous; it was to get support for a STRONG FEDERAL Constitution by allaying anti-federalist fears! Third, THE PEOPLE is the collective body politic, NOT each and every individual. Fourth, all this trust with arms was ONLY, repeat ONLY, in the context of a well regulated STATE militia; there is NOTHING about unorganized individuals with guns acting on their own discretion absent state-government-led-and-organized militias! Fifth, the phrase "bear arms" isn't even mentioned! But you wouldn't know THAT from the disingenuous and bogus snippet!
Since one CAN'T provide a cite in which MADISON, the AUTHOR of the 2nd Amen, MEANT "bear arms" to refer to a personal right of some kind independent of militia service and organization, this snippet quote is not relevant and doesn't prove a thing the hoplophiles claim.
"(W)hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was Governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should do it not openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually."..........I ask, who are the Militia? They consist now of the WHOLE people, except a few public officers." -- George Mason, Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
Again, bogus cites! First, this combines TWO different speeches as if ONE! Then, it leaves out the context that explains WHAT he was actually SAYING!
FIRST part, in context:
No, the fears of Mason and others what the freedom would be jeopardized ONLY if the feds FAILED to ARM the state militias, so they'd weaken or die, and a federal standing army, "the bane of liberty," would be built on the ruins!
Oh, and the term "disarmed" didn't necessarily mean to have each individuals' personal guns confiscated! See what leading anti-Fed George Mason said:
"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually..."
George Mason had fears of a Congressional monopoly to arm the militia as a potential to DISARM them, that is, to FAIL to arm them, and weaken them to uselessness; the 2nd Amen was WRITTEN precisely to prevent the feds from controlling or weakening the state militias by FAILING to arm them, which would have made the right to "bear arms" (serve in the militia as a citizen-soldier) moot. This is what George Mason meant by DISARMING the people, the people as a whole, as the enfranchised body politic. He did NOT mean taking away the private guns of each and every private citizen!
George Mason articulated the Anti-Federalist fear that the Constitution did not sufficiently protect the state militias from destruction, and the 2nd Amen was drafted later to address these ratification concerns:
"The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practiced in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless - by DISARMING them. Under various pretenses, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them..." -- 3 J. Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (2d ed. 1836), at 379.
The Anti-Federalist concern, therefore, was that the Congress might allow the state militias to die simply by failing to arm them, NOT by confiscating existing weapons.
The Virginia Convention proposed 20 amendments to the text of the Constitution, including that "each state respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining its own militias, wheresoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same." 3 Elliot's Debates, supra at 663. There is no suggestion in the Virginia debates that the delegates were concerned with an individual right to possess weapons outside the militia context.
The phrase "disarm" was clearly used in the 2nd Amen and ratification debates to mean "refuse to provide arms for" the militias. The debates among the states reflected a fear that giving Congress excessive power over the militia would enable Congress not only to regulate the militia, but also to disarm it completely, leaving the states defenseless against the federal government. In this sense, the state militias were thought to function as the "bulwarks of liberties." Statement by Gov. Randolph, in 3 Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 400 (1836; rprt.1941).
This is confirmed by leading anti-federalist Luther Martin:
"It was further observed that, when a government wishes to deprive their citizens of freedom, and reduce them to slavery, it generally makes use of a standing army for that purpose, and leaves the militia in a situation as contemptible as possible, lest they might oppose its arbitrary designs--that in this system we give the general government every provision it could wish for, and even invite it to subvert the liberties of the states and their citizens, since we give it the RIGHT to increase and keep up a standing army as numerous as it would wish, and, by placing the militia under its power, enable it to leave the militia totally unorganized, undisciplined, and even to DISARM them; while the citizens, so far from complaining of this neglect, might even esteem it a favor in the general government, as thereby they would be freed from the burden of militia duties, and left to their own private occupations and pleasures."
Another misunderstood quote on the same theme:
"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms." -- Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840
No, the fears of Mason and others what the freedom would be jeopardized ONLY if the feds FAILED to ARM the state militias, so they'd weaken or die, and a federal standing army, "the bane of liberty," would be built on the ruins!
Again, the term "disarmed" didn't necessarily mean to have each individuals' personal guns confiscated! See above.
So, I've given at least THREE cites that specifically show it WAS about disarming the militia by failing to ARM THE MILITIA, and not merely taking guns away from individuals by after-the-fact confiscation, which doesn't even enter the equation.
THE SECOND, separate cite:
The militia was NEVER everybody. Who was the militia in 1790? Able-bodied, white, male, property-owners not in prison or feeble-minded, approx. 18-45. The SAME basic CLASS of persons who made up the enfranchised body politic that could vote and serve in office and in juries! So the WHOLE PEOPLE, as Adams and Madison meant it, was ONLY the enfranchised males, and THEY were the same basic class as were the militia! No blacks, no women, no children, no elderly, no cripples, no felons, no insane, no furreners, no injuns. In other words, WAY, WAY less than half the US population. And militia service was not just a right, but a DUTY, an obligation to enroll, muster, train, and register weapons each year, for a time specified, in a well regulated state militia. And the 1792 requirement to purchase and bring and register weapons and supplies was a TAX that many felt burdened them, but it was the price to pay to avoid a standing army, "the bane of liberty."
The Militia Act of 1792 spelled out who was exempt from militia duty:
"II. And be it further enacted, That the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty, notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years."
And among those "exempted by the laws of the respective states," are conscientious objectors and those who could "pay an equivalent to bear arms in their stead."
Mason's words are usually misinterpreted, particularly by those who ONLY present the short out-of-context snippet.
Oh, and it had nothing to do with the 2nd Amen debates, or the individual right to "own and carry a gun."
Unless YOU understand that THE PEOPLE ONLY referred to the CLASS of free, white, property-owning adult males, you will stay in error. The militia was always as large subset of "the people," but never everyone, as neither was "the People" every single person.
Only free, white, property-owning adult males under 45, were required to serve in the Militia, and many additional exemptions for ministers, teachers, postal workers, ferryman, public officials, conscientious objectors and more.
When written in 1789, the MILITIA CLASS and the PEOPLE CLASS were nearly identical, the MILITIA CLASS being a large subset of THE PEOPLE CLASS, in which the free, white, adult, property-owning males of THE PEOPLE CLASS were able-bodied and not over age, and were registered IN the militia and "trained to arms."
When George Mason said: "Who are the militia?... the whole people..." he meant they came from every class and background within the enfranchised body politic, rather than just being from one economic or social class, but he feared that may devolve in time.
The context of "who are the militia?" was the composition of the militia, not the personal rights of militia men. The universal military obligation which Mason had in mind was enforced in the Selective Service Acts of the twentieth century. Under the militia system exemptions were generously provided. Men with money could buy themselves out of their obligation or pay a substitute. The exemptions under the Selective Service Acts were much more stingy and much more strictly enforced.
Here, read the larger context yourself:
Mr. GEORGE MASON. "Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty.
Under such a full and equal representation as ours, there can be no ignominious punishment inflicted. But under this national, or rather consolidated government, the case will be different. The representation being so small and inadequate, they will have no fellow-feeling for the people. They may discriminate people in their own predicament, and exempt from duty all the officers and lowest creatures of the national government. If there were a more particular definition of their powers, and a clause exempting the militia from martial law except when in actual service, and from fines and punishments of an unusual nature, then we might expect that the militia would be what they are.
But, if this be not the case, we cannot say how long all classes of people will be included in the militia. There will not be the same reason to expect it, because the government will be administered by different people. We know what they are now, but know not how soon they may be altered."
So MASON equates the militia with THE PEOPLE!
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself! They are the American people's Liberty Teeth and keystone under Independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurances, and tendencies PROVE that to insure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indespensable. The very atmosphere of firearms EVERYWHERE restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of HONOR with all that's good!" -- President Geo. Washington, in a speech to Congress. 7 January, 1790
Only one small problem... IT'S a HOAX! WASHINGTON NEVER SAID IT!
My original premise -- that the use of selective, edited, out-of-context quotes was not a reliable guide for interpreting the intent of the authors of a document -- is trumped by the fact that the quote above, attributed to G. Washington, IS TOTALLY FALSE!
One could have gone to guntruths.com (a PRO-GUN site, so you KNOW they have no reason to lie about it!) and found this piece of advice:
False Quotations and Other Misinformation
Factual accuracy is a key essential in the fight to retain our rights. However, in view of the media's overtly liberal and/or socialist bias, and their intentional misrepresentations, not to mention the ease with which false information can get promulgated and repeated via the Internet, factual accuracy is often the first casualty. For this reason, GunTruths.com has identified several purported quotations from prominent historical figures which are false, or which cannot be positively authenticated, and must therefore be treated as false.
Visitors to this site should review the quotes below and should avoid using or referring to them.
George Washington "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99-100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."
This quotation is usually cited as George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress. However, this statement does not appear in that address, nor has it ever been documented that Pres. Washington ever made this statement. It should therefore be considered a hoax and not relied upon.
BOGUS, FAKE & QUESTIONABLE QUOTES FALSELY ATTRIBUTED TO THE FOUNDING FATHERS
Perhaps the most 'infamous' bogus saying attributed to a Founding Father is the 'liberty teeth' quote alleged to have been said by George Washington. One version of this tale reads:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon, and citizen's firearms are indelibly related. From the moment the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms, go all goes; we need them every hour."
This has several variations including "hour" for "moment" and sometimes added as part of an actual Washington quote "A free people ought not only to be armed..." The various citations are even more numerous than different wordings: Address to the Second Session of the First U.S. Congress; Speech to Congress of January 7, 1790, printed in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790; The Federalist No. 53; Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1785.
The problems with this quote are many. (1) Prairie wagons were not being utilized and the prairies were uninhabited by European settlers at the time. (2) The percentage use and other modern English phrases such as "safe and sane" are suspicious and atypical for the time period. (3) The bold proclamation of needing firearms is odd since nobody was considering gun control against law-abiding people at the time. (4) Too many convenient topics are covered in one passage.
Despite all these problems, could parts of this quote be true? Maybe. But until it can be properly documented, stick to the many proven pro-gun quotes from George Washington and other Founding Fathers.
Did you get that? IT'S a HOAX! It's MADE UP! It's BOGUS!
And so many swallow all the rest of the hoplophile BS without checking it out! This example alone should make one suspicious of the conveniently pro-gun cites posted in a vacuum, since they are founded on LIES! And the whole argument that the "founders" enshrined the right of every individual to "own and carry" guns in the Constitution is based on a foundation of similar lies!
On this heap of bogus, phony, irrelevant, and out-of-context quotes, hoplophile pseudoscholars and their apologists would build the argument of what the Founding Fathers intended, as if they ALL had the same opinion, anyway!
THAT is why I have NO respect for the liars who promote these lies! They have no regard for history, accuracy, honesty, or sticking to the truth.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
Nope, not at all! Hamilton didn't SAY this!
Check below; the above quote is WRONG. It's NOT what Hamilton said! It's been twisted and manipulated to say the opposite of what he ACTUALLY was saying!
Again, this has nothing to do with the 2nd Amen, but with the question of standing armies, and a select vs. sedentary militia. By the time of the 2nd Amen, this was moot and settled. Again, this is not about individual rights, but how the select corps of militia would be best trained and equipped.
*The words between asterisks that follow from No. 29 are the words quoted,*
the other words have been conveniently left out. The words by themselves seem to make one point, but in full context they defeat it. An important point is that individual right advocates make a great distinction between the "organized" or "select" militia and the "unorganized" or "sedentary" militia. The select militia in this consciousness is an instrument of the state and embodies the states' right not the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment. The sedentary militia embodies the individual right interpretation and is extralegal. The individual right is the right the District Court has granted protection to in Emerson. Here, it has to be noted that in full context Hamilton is arguing for the select militia not the sedentary militia, the very opposite of what would seem to be represented. This is the work of true belief or outright dishonesty not objective scholarship.
As with Patrick Henry, this is really a question of MONEY, and what was feasible. Hamilton, who served as Washington's aide-de-camp, saw for himself the pathetic showing of the militia in combat; he did not believe the militia should be the backbone of the nation's defenses, and favored a trained standing army. But a select corp of trained militia -- and THAT'S who he's talking about being armed -- is the second best option. As for the militia, when you read the following, you see that he realizes that arming and training the ENTIRE militia to HIS standards was impractical, if not impossible: "the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable"; the best HE could hope for, at least, and SARCASTICALLY, is that they be armed, for they surely won't be trained!
"But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution ratified and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in the substance, the following discourse:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness of military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country to an amount which, calculating upon the present members of the people, would not fall far short of a million pounds. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured.
*Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped;*
and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate size, upon such principles as will really fit it for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it.
*This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.*
This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
Thus differently from the adversaries of the proposed Constitution should I reason on the same subject, deducing arguments to safety from the very sources which they represent as fraught with danger and perdition. But now the national legislature may reason on the point is a thing which neither they nor I can foresee."
The Second Amendment had not yet been written and Hamilton does not mention an individual right or the sedentary militia. He sort of suggests the possibility of a sedentary militia but only to deny its viability.
From THE SECOND AMENDMENT: THE HIGHEST STAGE OF ORIGINALISM by Jack N. Rakove:
"Hamilton's refutation of the standing army allegation in The Federalist No. 24, for example, is a sustained sortie in sarcasm. So, too, is his dismissal in The Federalist No. 29 of the idea that it would be dangerous to rely upon a "select" militia -- the same institution which proponents of the individual right interpretation insist Americans generally deemed to be nearly as threatening as a standing army. As far as Hamilton (framer, ratifier, and distinguished commentator on the Constitution, as well as leading member of its first cabinet) was concerned, the only good militia was a select militia. Indeed, Hamilton's discussion in this essay, cast in the form of the advice he would give to a future Congress, nicely captures the tension in Federalist thinking between the received definition of the militia, on the one hand, and the institution the new government should regulate, on the other. Hamilton opens this passage by declaring that "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution." As used here, the phrase "all the militia" connotes the body of the people; but Hamilton immediately proceeds to explain why the inconvenience, cost, and sheer impracticality of training the entire population make it desirable to form "a select corps of moderate extent" who could provide the "well regulated militia" (a phrase Hamilton uses) that the mass of the citizenry could never constitute. A Hamiltonian gloss on the Second Amendment would presumably equate the people whose arms-bearing right must be protected with the militia that could be "well regulated" only if it was select."
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." -- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
ANOTHER quote out of context! But look what was left out; here are the preceding sentences:
Rep. Gerry: "Now I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty"
Just WHAT did Gerry mean HERE by "bearing arms"? REMEMBER Madison's clause?:
"... but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
IF Congress can determine that someone is religiously scrupulous, Congress can "prevent them from bearing arms," which is to say, prevent them from rendering "military service in person" and thus weakening or "destroy[ing] the militia" and making a standing army likely!
Then left out is THIS telling sentence, between "liberty..." and "Whenever" that shows that this was a MILITIA amendment they were dealing with and NOT about individual rights to "own a gun":
Rep. Gerry: "Now it must be evident, that under this provision, together with their other powers, congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as make a standing army necessary."
So the selective snippet is bogus, and misses the point Gerry was making ABOUT the 2nd Amen!
As Elbridge Gerry put it, "the use of a militia" was "to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty."
Creating the Bill of Rights, supra note 193, at 182 (statement of Rep. Gerry). Yet the Second Amendment did not purport to take away Congress's authority under Article I, Section 8, to establish an army. The Federalist George Nicholas expressed the point more clearly in the Virginia Ratifying Convention when he stated that, by granting Congress this authority while at the same time preserving the institution of the militia, the Constitution had taken the best course:
Till there be a necessity for an army to be raised, militia will do. And when an army will be raised, the militia will still be employed, which will render a less numerous army sufficient. By these means, there will be a sufficient defence for the country, without having a standing army altogether, or oppressing the people [by relying solely on the militia].
Historian Garry Wills: "No one was a member of the militia who had not joined an authorized "trained band" and been trained. So important is proper training that we often find "well-regulated" followed by an epexegetic phrase, spelling out the meaning of the term: "a well regulated militia, trained to arms" was the form Elbridge Gerry preferred for the Second Amendment."
"As we have seen, much of the debate over the Constitution and the Second Amendment makes sense only on the assumption that the militia was to be armed by the government itself. See, e.g., supra text accompanying notes 202-05 (discussing the objection of George Mason and Patrick Henry that Congress could disarm the state militias simply by failing to arm them); text accompanying notes 215 (discussing remarks of Reps. Gerry and Scott in House debate); see also 3 Elliot's Debates, supra note 193, at 421 (statement of John Marshall) ("If Congress neglect our militia, we can arm them ourselves. Cannot Virginia import arms? Cannot she put them into the hands of her militia-men?")...
For example, Elbridge Gerry objected to the religious-exemption clause on the ground that it would allow the rulers to "declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms." Creating the Bill of Rights, supra note 193, at 182 (statement of Representative Gerry). This statement makes sense only if "bearing arms" refers to military service, for exclusion from the militia would not prevent individuals from having arms for their own purposes. Similarly, Representative Scott argued that if there were a right to religious exemption, "you can never depend upon your militia. This will lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms ... ." Id. at 198 (statement of Representative Scott). Again, it is difficult to see how this could be true unless the right in question is to keep arms in the context of the militia..."
Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, opened the 1789 House debate on the Second Amendment. His statement, in which he objects to the wording of a conscientious-objector feature, was the longest of the debate. Which of the words excerpted below, or elsewhere in the House Second Amendment debate, speak to personal gun rights? None at all. The claim for personal gun rights is pure "gerrymandering." The debate's discussion is about the importance of retaining the militia system to avoid an oppressive standing army, not about the individual use of guns for personal purposes. The Second Amendment is a militia amendment, as Jefferson said.
"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause [the draft of what was to become the Second Amendment] would give an opportunity in the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision [the draft of what was to become the Second Amendment], together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
Typical of the hoplophiles to CUT OUT the middle sentence that refers ONLY to the militia and how "such measures" ("disarming" or failing to arm, as Mason meant it!) would kill the militia and make a dreaded standing army necessary, something anti-Feds like Gerry, Mason, and Jefferson, who's letter to Priestley was HIS reason for demanding an amendment, were most concerned about; notice that they NEVER discuss private gun ownership at all, or discuss this amendment being for ANY other reason than relating to military service!
Why not look at the rest of the debate to see what they were ACTUALLY talking about!
Read what the Congressional debates discussed; NO mention of "guns" or "individual rights" other than conscientious objection. The whole argument was over the composition and control of the militias:
(All quotes taken verbatim from "Creating the Bill of Rights" ed. Veit, Rowling, Bickford; Debates in the House of Representatives, August 1789; pp. 182-4, 198-9)
Rep. Boudinot said, "What dependence can be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? Or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, if they are honest men they would rather die than use them."
By the way, if there is STILL any question about EXACTLY WHAT "bear arms" means, READ that again:
"what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms"
Compelling them to bear arms! There is no other way to read that phrase EXCEPT as "compelling them to possibly use firearms to kill while serving in the militia"! Not "compelling them to 'carry a gun' on their person"... why would Congress want to compel ANYONE to carry a gun? Need MORE proof?:
"The words 'in person' were added after the word 'arms,' (No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms IN PERSON), and the amendment was adopted."
BEAR ARMS IN PERSON! THAT means, as Madison originally wrote it, "to render military service in person"! It CAN'T just mean to "carry a gun in person" as that MAKES NO SENSE! IN PERSON refers to NOT paying an equivalent to serve in the militia in one's stead; since IF YOU pay someone else to serve in your place, as a substitute for YOUR duty, YOU don't have to serve in the militia (bear arms) IN PERSON!
But the House REJECTED Gerry's call to drop the clause, and passed it much as Madison wanted. We don't have the Senate debates on precisely why THEY dropped it, although Gerry's arguments may have been more successful there, and the Senate tried, wherever possible, to tighten the wording and shorten the articles.
But Gerry's fears were PRECISELY that Congress would exclude individuals:
Rep. Gerry: "Now I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
Prevent them from "carrying guns"? Congress saying to Quakers, "Sorry, but since you are religiously scrupulous about bearing arms, YOU are thus to be prevented from using a hunting rifle to shoot turkeys!"? And then go BEYOND sects KNOWN to be against military service (e.g. Quakers, Moravians), making the same argument to Catholics or Jews, to prevent THEM from hunting also? HA!
NO, PREVENT THEM FROM SERVING in the militia... from BEARING ARMS!
Gerry continuing, "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head;" for this reason he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect, scrupulous of bearing arms.
[Notice here that Gerry is here EQUATING "militia duty" with "bearing arms"! "Exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples" = "prevent... those religiously scrupulous... from bearing arms"! There IS no other way to read it! They mean the same thing!]
Rep. Jackson: Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent, for this reason he moved to amend the clause... Was willing to accommodate; he thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person, upon paying an equivalent.
Rep. Sherman: "It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent; many of them would rather die than do either one or the other."
(Does anyone think that all this talk about "bearing arms" has anything here to do with merely "carrying guns"? THIS is what the Congress debated about -- militia service ONLY -- NOT hunting, or personal self defense! Does anyone think Quakers or Moravians would "rather die" than "carry" a hunting gun to get a turkey, or that they'd "rather die" than to "pay an equivalent" to "carry" that hunting gun around for them and use it in their stead to kill turkeys for them because THEY have religious scruples about "carrying guns"!)
Rep. Vining: Hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to COMPEL a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the government, was THE SAME as if the person HIMSELF TURNED OUT TO FIGHT. [emphasis added]
("The person himself turned out to fight." THAT is what ALL these persons UNDERSTOOD "bearing arms" to mean! It is inconceivable to me that anyone reading these exchanges, that use the term "bearing arms" to ONLY mean militia service, particularly someone who'd never seen the term "bear arms" before, could even SUGGEST that the term means anything else -- such as "carry a gun" -- given the context and usage! Just TRY replacing "bear arms" in these quotes with "carry guns" and see how ludicrous it sounds!)
That's about it. NO reference to hunting, personal self-defense, target shooting in the Amendment OR any of the Congressional debates.
"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion......in private self defense......" -- John Adams; A Defense of the Constitution of the Government of the U.S.A. 471 (1788)
More disingenuous misrepresentation!
His FULL QUOTE means the OPPOSITE of the purported claim! Adams was TERRIFIED of MOBS of citizens acting "at individual discretion" OUTSIDE THE LAW and authority! It basically refutes any understanding of the "armed populace" theory!
This essential left-out line establishes the context:
"It must be made a sacred maxim, that the militia obey the executive power, which represents the whole people in the execution of laws."
This is NOT about anyone having a gun for any purpose, or supporting groups of ragtag hotheads taking up arms in rebellion or insurrection.
This may be the worst abuse of selective out-of-context use!
Here's a fuller reading of this bit:
"[T]he militia then must all obey the sovereign majority, or divide, and part follow the majority, and part the minority. This last case is civil war; but until it comes to this, the whole militia may be employed by the majority in any degree of tyranny and oppression over the minority.
The constitution furnishes no resource or remedy; nothing affords a chance of relief but rebellion and civil war: if this terminates in favor of the minority, they will terrorize in their turns, exasperated by revenge, in addition to ambition and avarice; if the majority prevail, their domination becomes more cruel, and soon ends in one despot. It must be made a sacred maxim, that the militia obey the executive power, which represents the whole people in the execution of laws. ***To suppose arms in the hands of the citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man - is a dissolution of the government.*** The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed, and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." -- John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, p. 474-5 (1787-88)
It means just about the opposite of what is implied by the selective quoting!
If you read Adams' original quote CAREFULLY, he certainly refers to A self-defense component. But the thrust of his argument is that arms used at "individual discretion," which means an armed populace acting OUTSIDE the "executive power...the whole people...the laws" is to "demolish every constitution." He's not even talking about actual rebellion; just to "suppose arms in the hands of citizens" OUTSIDE the militia "created, directed, and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws" was equal to "dissolution of the government" or anarchy! So, individual militiamen may possess their arms, and they may obviously use them for self defense, too, but there is no argument here to suggest that Adams saw an armed populace as a "check" on government, a position he holds with Madison, among others.
Sure, Adams comprehended a self-defense component as necessary in some contexts and locations, such as on the frontier or during sieges, but the TENOR of his words is quite specifically focussed elsewhere; he was TERRIFIED of uncontrolled or unorganized arms, acting outside the law, subject to NO government knowledge and authority as the OPPOSITE of liberty! They'd just witnessed Shays' Rebellion, for crying out loud! THAT was one of the reasons WHY the Constitution was envisioned to replace the Articles of Confederation!
Lawful arms were militia arms in militia service and control!
That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms... -- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789
Just copying a truncated snippet out of context without precise date, place, and where one can find the original, is hardly a proper cite. These truncated snippets appear in many places, all from the same likely disingenuous redactor. And each hoplophile site just steals it unchecked from another, and keeps repeating it unchallenged. But whether Adams ACTUALLY said it is never proven, and, more importantly, it is ignored that this was merely a proposal, and IT WAS WITHDRAWN! It NEVER was sent!
But even then, most simply mis-read WHAT he WAS asking for! THE PEOPLE is NOT each and every person; it is the COLLECTIVE BODY POLITIC! "THEIR OWN ARMS" are the states' militia arms for common defense! KEEPING them isn't just failure to confiscate them, but MAINTAINING THE UPKEEP of the well regulated militia's inventory!
He was NOT involved in its drafting or debate! And the whole cite is bogus anyway!
You might also want to know the ACTUAL quote that shows how easily this source snips away parts without an ellipsis to indicate where something was removed or changed, typical of hoplophile postings:
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions." -- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788
(Actually: Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850. 2, col. 2. Fact is, when one goes to the sources, Sam Adams is not particularly identified!)
There's NO proof Sam Adams EVER said this inaccurate quote! (I've seen claims he has, and that he hadn't; but it's not proven he did.)
Irrelevant and bogus. There is no proof that Sam Adams ever said or wrote this, but hoplophiles go on citing it as if he had no matter how often they are asked to prove he did, but they can't. BECAUSE when you actually go to the sources, SAMUEL ADAMS'S NAME IS NOT TO BE FOUND! There IS NO PROOF that HE is the one who said this! More sloppy hoplophile research!
This was merely one of MANY proposals sent to New York for the Congress to consider.
It was only a PROPOSAL. Second, they WITHDREW this proposal; maybe the recent Shays Rebellion gave pause. It was never adopted by Congress, so it was NOT what THEY wanted to say. Madison and his committee in Congress had other intents and purposes in mind, or else they COULD have said what they didn't, rather than what they DID.
And "the people" in this context, as it was in JOHN Adams's Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 was ALWAYS "the people at large" acting as the collective body politic, and NOT each and every individual taken separately; THIS was a militia reference to the collective people maintaining the upkeep and readiness of the militia as an alternative to a standing army ("keeping arms" as John Adams used the term in the Mass Constitution), as confirmed by the very next clause about the standing armies.
The "people" here is ONLY the well-regulated STATE militias and the populus armatus that controls it.
Some rights, like that of "the people" to keep and bear arms, is of the people at large, the collective jus militiae right of the people at large as the populus armatus to be involved in the state's (or nation's) military function, by establishing, arming, controlling, maintaining the upkeep and readiness of the militia, and serving (if qualified) as citizen-soldiers (as opposed to "regular" professional soldiers in a standing army) drawn from the body of the people, and "trained to arms" and "enrolled" into an organized, "well regulated" state militia. (The INDIVIDUAL right Madison wanted was the conscientious objector right that the House OK'd but the Senate removed.)
The right to keep and bear arms was in the context of the citizen soldier of the conscript militia. In the eighteenth century private arms were never strictly private. The public had a claim for public purposes. Which is why the Militia Act of 1792 directed each qualified man to enroll (i.e. register) himself AND his MILITIA WEAPONS and ACCESSORIES each year at muster, or be fined for failure to, and such inventory of ALL the men and arms was reported to the state's gov and the US president, so that THEY would know on what resources they could call on in case of need, including private arms!
"RICHARD HENRY LEE":
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." -- Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress (1788)
How could he be commenting, in 1788, on the 2nd Amen, which Madison didn't draft until June 1789, and wasn't the 2ND AMEN until ratified in 1791? BTW, where was he a Senator in 1788? The US Senate didn't take office until 1789!
But it's moot, as Lee didn't say it anyway, but, rather, Melancton Smith did!
Let's look at the FULLER cite, rather than bogus or misrepresentative snippets.
This cite didn't mention where or in what context this was said; it's usually attributed as: Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169. One problem: Lee didn't write these; ever since Stephen Halbrook made the error, it keeps getting passed on. Melancton Smith is regarded by historians as the author, and this error is another example of sloppy hoplophile "research."
For a final example, consider the treatment of the militia question by the writer known as the Federal Farmer, usually identified in the current historical literature as Melancton Smith, the moderate Antifederalist who eventually cooperated in securing ratification by the New York convention in which Federalists were a distinct minority. In his eighteenth and final letter, the Farmer includes the Mason-like statement that "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary." Halbrook, though mistakenly identifying the Farmer with Richard Henry Lee, quotes at length from this essay, which includes an important discussion of the difference between a general militia composed of the body of the people and the select militia which might turn into a tool of power. But again, the omissions are revealing. Like Madison in The Federalist No. 46, the Farmer poses the problem as one of allocating powers over the militia between two levels of government. His definition of the militia is preceded by this statement of the problem: "in a federal republic, where the people meet in distinct assemblies, many stipulations are necessary to keep a part from transgressing, [Page 145] which would be unnecessary checks against the whole met in one legislature, in one entire government." The issue, again, was a matter of allocating powers within a structure of federalism, not of defining private rights. Moreover, in discussing the advantages of a general militia over a select militia, the Farmer actually winds up arguing against the idea that the militia should consist of the entire population. His own idea, the Farmer writes, was that "the federal head may prescribe a general uniform plan, on which the respective states shall form and train the militia, appoint their officers and solely manage them, except when called into the service of the union." Such an "arrangement," he continues, places the sword in the hands of the solid interest of the community, and not in the hands of men destitute of property, of principle, or of attachment to the society and government, who often form the select corps of peace or ordinary establishments:
by it, the militia are the people, immediately under the management of the state governments, but on a uniform federal plan ... .
In this analysis, it turns out, there are two kinds of select militia, neither of which comprises the whole body of the people. A nationally-organized select militia would likely draw upon the worst elements of society, the dregs who formed the feared regular troops of European monarchies; while a state-based select militia (here equated with "the people") would consist of the solid citizens, to the exclusion of the same untrustworthy elements who could not be counted upon to maintain the social order. And in both cases, the Federal Farmer constructs his argument within a matrix of federalism; he never posits the distinction between government (whether national or state) and population on which the individual right interpretation relies.
Beyond illustrating the propensity of individual right writers to truncate quotations mercilessly, the consideration of these debates and texts demonstrates that the discussions of 1787-88 were preoccupied with the question of the militia, and that this question was addressed almost exclusively under the rubric of federalism. Whether there was, or should be, a private, constitutionally sanctioned right to own and use firearms was simply not at issue. The rhetoric of ratification certainly included many statements from both sides on the advantages of a well regulated militia as a valuable [Page 146] alternative to a standing army, but such statements did not require either side to reach the question of the nature and extent of the private rights of ownership and use, much less the question of the power of the states to legislate should the use of firearms prove inimical to the health and welfare of society.
And it, too, had nothing to do with debates on the 2nd Amen, two years in the future, or explains what Madison meant by the words he used, or is about any individual right to "own and carry a gun" independent of militia service.
And, in 1789, THE PEOPLE was, as it is now, a term of art meaning ONLY the enfranchised body politic of FREEMEN, however THAT term is defined at the time, then being ONLY free, white males of age.
With the exceptions of those males over 45, or infirm, or otherwise exempt, the PEOPLE CLASS and the MILITIA CLASS were pretty much the same, the militia being "drawn from the body of the people."
So he's arguing for a general rather than select militia. So? He's NOT talking about an absolute fundamental right for an individual to own or use a gun outside reach or knowledge of the constituted authorities or independent of militia service! "Capable of 'bearing arms'" doesn't mean "physically having the strength to carry a gun"!
"The balance of power is the scale of peace. 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. Horrible mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them.............the weak will become prey to the strong." -- Thomas Paine
Again, the fuller context shows what he was REALLY saying:
"The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defense. 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 balance of power is the scale of peace. 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;... the weak will become a prey to the strong." -- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War," 1775
This was BEFORE the Revolutionary War, much less related to the Constitution or Bill of Rights. It has no bearing on the purpose and meaning of the 2nd Amen.
Nice sentiments DURING THE REVOLUTION! Irrelevant to the 2nd Amen, which was written FOURTEEN years later. Oh, and the term "bear arms" is NOT mentioned.
Notice it says "arms LIKE LAWS discourage..." Paine seems to have high regard for laws! What else? "The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike"! So Paine is clearly calling for the banning of ALL guns, isn't he!
He is not talking about a personal right to guns, only that ARMS in the general sense and in common are a necessary evil FOR NATIONS AND PEOPLES as some NATIONS will not give up THEIR arms. And he didn't say "the law-abiding" did he, but HALF THE WORLD, which obviously is referring to ARMIES and ARMED nations versus nations unilaterally disarming, NOT individuals! So this bogus cite has NOTHING to do with Uncle Jack keeping his turkey rifle!
Paine thought SEVERAL conflicting and irrelevant things here, and NONE of them has any bearing on a "personal right" to own a gun!
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
As usual, a mere snippet! Typical hoplophile disingenuousness or ignorance.
(Of course, Story wasn't a Founder or Framer, but was considered one of the leading authorities on the Constitution during the first half of the 19th century.)
This commentary was ONLY in the context of the well regulated militia, and NOT about ALL persons (only free, white, adult men were legally CITIZENS in that era, as I've shown from Bouvier's Law Dictionary!). This snippet doesn't even INCLUDE the word "militia"! But THAT is what Story refers to as the "palladium" and the rest of his comments, as I've posted, show that, and shows that the 2nd Amen is about THE MILITIA's preservation, and not individual gun rights for each person, independent of preserving the militia!
Those who post this truncated cite are clearly ignorant of the WHOLE of Story's comments, and have simply swallowed the butchered hoplophile bilge, likely from Halbrook, without bothering to check the FULL context:
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890-91 (1833)
§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. --
Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.
In context, Story was describing the conscript militia as the palladium of the liberties of a republic, not the civil rights of private individuals.
Many people who lived through the American Revolution and participated in it did not understand the transformation in political concepts the Revolution achieved. It would not be remarkable if many others failed to understand the transformation in political concepts. By citing Blackstone it is not clear that Story fully understood what had happened either.
Story goes on from his description of the "palladium of the liberties of a republic" to lament that the militia was falling into disuse because the people were losing interest in the right to participate. The decline of the militia was expected by the Federalists. They wanted to build a viable nation with national power. They knew the military force had to be based on a national military force and the militia was useless to that purpose. The transformation in political concepts that was achieved in the US Constitution also meant that the militia no longer served its theoretical function as a balance of power between the rulers and the ruled as separate estates of the realm as it had in the British Constitution and in the consciousness of Blackstone and the Anti-Federalists. There was no longer a right of the people to consent through Parliament to be ruled by royal prerogative now that the rulers and the ruled were one and the same. The Federalists could concede the Second Amendment as a political accommodation to the Anti-Federalists because they knew it would have disappearing relevance in the new nation. The struggle for the Federalists was over ratification of the Constitution not the definition of words.
The disappearance of the militia did not mean the disappearance of liberty.
Story's words "system of militia discipline" and "to be rid of all regulations" imply that the militia was a military organization and the discipline and regulation were imposed from above by law. They do not emerge from the militiamen themselves. The natural defense against "domestic insurrection" refers more explicitly to the NRA's "armed citizen guerrillas." Story does not give any more instructions on how to address the circumstance when the usurpation and arbitrary power comes from the these "armed citizen guerrillas" when it becomes their design to subvert the government. We saw it in the twentieth century with the Nazi Party's Stormtroopers.
Finally, Story was an extremely conservative man, understood to be such. Justice Story never belonged to a militia himself and never spoke otherwise about the militia. You can go through his collected papers and letters. He never addressed the militia. And, most importantly, when Dorr's Rebellion occurred in Rhode Island, which was a movement for universal male suffrage, Justice Story came out and said that it is treason to take up arms against one's government. Period. And he called for the president of the United States, at that time President Tyler, to disarm the people of Rhode Island. So, in terms of, at least, a presumed insurrectionary model, this particular quotation offers no support.
COCKRUM V. STATE:
"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the 'High Powers' delegated directly to the citizen by the United States Constitution, Amendment II, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government'. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon it or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power." -- Texas Supreme Court Decision, Cockrum vs State of Texas, 1859
More misquoted, truncated cites! Here is what WAS said, in context:
Cockrum v. State, 24 Texas 394 (1859):
"The clause in the constitution of the United States, that it is said to be in violation of, is the 2d article of the amendments: "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." O. & W. Dig. 7. The clause in the constitution of this state, which it is said to violate, is the 13th section of the bill of rights: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state." O. & W. Dig. 14.
The object of the clause first cited, has reference to the perpetuation of free government, and is based on the idea, that the people cannot be effectually oppressed and enslaved, who are not first disarmed. The clause cited in our bill of rights, has the same broad object in relation to the government, and in addition thereto, secures a personal right to the citizen. The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the state government.
It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power."
So, first, we deflate the strawman about a GOVERNMENT being the source of rights, which nobody but strawslingers claim; but the right IS derived from a CONVENTION of the PEOPLE who framed the constitutions that established the state government! Because THE PEOPLE is the source of ALL political rights; they discover/define/enumerate/grant/guarantee etc, all rights, as the whole concept of rights only makes sense in a social structure, and when you get larger than what rights a tribal council of elders determines, it is the body politic, or THE PEOPLE that is the source!
As for being an INDIVIDUAL, or personal, right:
***The clause cited in our bill of rights, has the same broad object in relation to the government, and in addition thereto, secures a personal right to the citizen.***
IF the 2nd Amen secured a personal right, how could he have made this statement? If the Texas state constitution didn't recognize a PERSONAL right to keep and bear arms, how could he have said it does, and that that is something BEYOND the "broad object," which is NOT a "personal right," which this clause ADDS "in addition thereto"?
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi
A quote advanced to support the armed populace fantasy is from Mohandas Gandhi, the leader of nonviolent resistance to British rule in India. His objective of Independence was achieved in 1947. Gandhi wrote in Chapter XXVII, "The Recruiting Campaign," in his autobiography, My Experiments with Truth:
'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.' So the quote is accurate, but what is the context?
"Arms" in this context were military arms not the personal weapons of private individuals. The context of "depriving of the whole nation of arms" was the refusal of the British to conscript Indians into the British Army during the First World War. Gandhi was an extreme anti-militarist. The statement is odd coming out of him, but he used the circumstance for political purposes to advance the cause of Home Rule and Independence.
The full chapter is provided at http://potowmack.org/gandhi.html
Watch those QUOTES! Even if they ARE accurate in the selected words themselves (like Gandhi's), they may be out-of-context, irrelevant, or contradicted by the same person on a different day!
In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, a 4th Amendment case, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in passing dicta, stumbled upon the truth concerning the meaning of the term "THE PEOPLE" and yet this very cite is often used, by those who don't understand it, to mean the very opposite! Such is the confusion and befuddlement of the hoplophile claque!
First, the mangled quote as often cited:
"'[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the People of the United States.' The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.' While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive,
This is DICTA. This is NOT a 2nd Amen case! Even Rehnquist is here hesitant to go on a limb! "By no means conclusive"! Hardly the stuff of hat-hanging!
Again, only "suggests"!
that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of people who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community." (citations omitted)
And this is in TOTAL agreement with what I've been saying!
The PEOPLE is NOT JUST EACH INDIVIDUAL, but a CLASS OF PERSONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And look at the disingenuous word switch from CLASS OF PERSONS to the false CLASS OF PEOPLE above, as if PEOPLE were the plural of PERSON! Someone is either a lying fraud, or ignorant!
Here's the actual cite:
"While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
And non-citizen aliens, among others, are NOT in the People Class! So THE PEOPLE is NOT each and every individual person! And in 1792, neither were women, blacks, indians, felons, or kids!
This conforms with the Bouvier definition just fine, thank you! IF you are IN the Class of Persons that WAS the FREEMAN CLASS or PEOPLE CLASS in 1792, you COULD invoke distributive rights OF the CLASS, IF they were distributive rights. First and Fourth Amen rights WERE, but the only distributive 2nd Amen rights were to vote on state reps who administered the militia, or to keep personal arms IF one were IN the militia.
But look at it further:
"That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach only to 'the people.' Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this phrase 'simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy,' Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12, n. 4, 'the people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the people of the United States." The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.' See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ('Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble'); Art. 1, 2, cl. 1 ('The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States'). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. See United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 292 (1904) (Excludable alien is not entitled to First Amendment rights, because '[h]e does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter forbidden by law;)." -- United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez
There's no express individual right to own and carry guns in this!
So, this is mere dicta by Rehnquist, and NOT part of the ruling, in what was NOT a 2nd Amen case! But this only PROVES the point that it is NOT referring to individuals, but to a CLASS of persons that EXCLUDES those who are NOT part of the class of enfranchised citizens! THE PEOPLE IS NOT EVERYONE! THE PEOPLE IS NOT simply every individual person AS person, but a CLASS!
Look: "That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach only to 'the people.'!
Hmmm, if something extends its reach ONLY to "THE PEOPLE" than THAT can't be EVERYONE! THE PEOPLE is LESS than EVERYONE! It is a CLASS of PERSONS SMALLER than the entire population! ONLY FREEMEN comprise the PEOPLE! HENCE, it is NOT something that applies to any or all individuals, as THAT would be EVERYONE!
First, Rehnquist's comments in Verdugo are DICTA; it's NOT in the ruling, and NOT relevant to the 2nd Amen rights, being a 4th Amen ruling. Second, his comments are not more than a tentative aside. Even Rehnquist hedged his mere suggestion. Third, the word "individuals" doesn't even appear! No, it says CLASS of persons, and CLASS is by definition a collective term!
Nowhere does he EVER even suggest that the rights in these mentions are individual rights! All that is suggested is that those, like non-citizens, who are NOT in the class of persons known as THE PEOPLE are NOT covered by the provisions that refer to THAT class, so, in THIS case, foreigners are NOT covered by 4th Amen rights! Well, foreigners ARE individuals, right? So if THEY are not covered by a right of THE PEOPLE, ipso facto, a right of the PEOPLE is not necessarily one that ALL INDIVIDUALS have! QED.
"While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
A "class" is a collective term for a collective (adjective) entity! It is a singular term for a plural number of things!
And in THIS case, it ONLY means the CLASS of persons known as CITIZENS! ALL it suggests is that NON-CITIZENS may not be entitled to all Bill of Rights protections! The dicta, and certainly NOT the ruling, says NOTHING about the nature of the 2nd Amen or its rights.
Verdugo was a 4th Amen case, not a 2nd Amen case. The only reference to the 2nd was a passing, non-relevant aside by Rehnquist on what the term "the people" might mean. Rehnquist's obiter dictum, which even HE said was suggestive and not conclusive, had no bearing on the 2nd Amen's meaning or application. All he was saying was that NON-citizens are not necessarily part of the "class of persons" (class being a singular term for a plural number) covered by those rights of THE PEOPLE.
Hoplophiles who cite this are reading an AWFUL lot into a throwaway dicta line from Rehnquist that even Rehnquist says is not the final answer!
Rehnquist did not say that "the People" DENOTED INDIVIDUALS, nor even implied it! He said CLASS of persons with particular characteristics, and that was NOT everyone! In 1789 it wasn't women, blacks, kids, felons, aliens, indians, and more!
Rehnquist was tangentially suggesting in dicta that THE PEOPLE is a CLASS OF PERSONS and that foreigners, for example, are NOT part of THE PEOPLE. In 1792 neither were women, kids, blacks, injuns, felons, etc. Yet they were ALL individuals! Hence, THE PEOPLE was NOT simply each and all individuals, then or now, but ONLY the members of THE PEOPLE Class, whose rights MAY or MAY NOT be DISTRIBUTIVE, depending on the context and nature of the right.
The 'term of art' is "class of persons," a plural reference to the people at large, the collective body of persons who ARE citizens. Which is why a non-citizen alien didn't even have 4th Amen rights normally distributive to an individual member of the PEOPLE CLASS! How much less would a non-member of the PEOPLE CLASS have any right to invoke a NON-distributive 2nd Amen right of the collective PEOPLE CLASS, the enfranchised body politic in its collective and political capacity?