Gun Rights and Gun Control

[carpedm9587]

You said specifically that

Lilpixie has demonstrated that to be false.

Now read what I said VERY carefully, and tell me where I said that the second amendment didn't give people a right to own arms. At no point did I say that. What I DID say was that the founders saw the right to bear arms as in support of a civilian militia. That militia was predominantly in the defense of the country because they did not want a standing army. Pixie produced three federalist papers, two of which support exactly what I was saying: the focus was civilian militia. Hamilton included the need for these militia to protect the citizens against a possible future tyranical government. I admit I scanned them quickly and it has been years since I have reread the Federalist Papers, but I found nothing in 28 or 29 that spoke to personal protection against criminal elements. I have not reviewed 46. Historically, that shift started happening in the 1970s with the new focus of the NRA after it's leadership was removed, and completed with the 2008 ruling when Scalia wrote his (somewhat infamous) opinion.

I also provided the link to one of the resources that outlined that history. I try to find neutral resources as much as possible, and this is a breakdown of the history of the 2nd amendment in law.

Let me guess... I'm going to hear "moving the goalposts" again....

[carpedm9587]

Actually - reading Pixie's post, it appears to me that she is interpreting the protection against a tyrannical government as "personal protection." That may be a/the source of the confusion. Hamilton was clear that the militia's were part of protecting the citizenry against both a possible future tyrannical government, as well as protecting the new nation against outside forces. Both of those had to do with arms in support of a militia - the militia having two possible "adversaries." "Personal protection," as I used it, was intended to refer to protection of self against individual attack (hence "personal"). This, as Pixie noted in her post, is the "personal protection" shift that occured primarily beginning in the 1970s and culminating in the 2008 ruling.

[rogue06]

Now read what I said VERY carefully, and tell me where I said that the second amendment didn't give people a right to own arms. At no point did I say that. What I DID say was that the founders saw the right to bear arms as in support of a civilian militia. That militia was predominantly in the defense of the country because they did not want a standing army. Pixie produced three federalist papers, two of which support exactly what I was saying: the focus was civilian militia. Hamilton included the need for these militia to protect the citizens against a possible future tyranical government. I admit I scanned them quickly and it has been years since I have reread the Federalist Papers, but I found nothing in 28 or 29 that spoke to personal protection against criminal elements. I have not reviewed 46. Historically, that shift started happening in the 1970s with the new focus of the NRA after it's leadership was removed, and completed with the 2008 ruling when Scalia wrote his (somewhat infamous) opinion.

I also provided the link to one of the resources that outlined that history. I try to find neutral resources as much as possible, and this is a breakdown of the history of the 2nd amendment in law.

Let me guess... I'm going to hear "moving the goalposts" again....

From what I remember in the "Federalist No. 29" Alexander Hamilton clearly and unambiguously stated that membership in a well-regulated militia is not required for the right to keep arms.

[carpedm9587]

From what I remember in the "Federalist No. 29" Alexander Hamilton clearly and unambiguously stated that membership in a well-regulated militia is not required for the right to keep arms.

You'll have to show me where (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_F...t_(Dawson)/29). The word "militia" does not appear, the word "arms" does not appear, the word "member" does not appear, and the word "military" occurs once in the opening paragraph, where Hamilton affirms the right of the government to raise a military force. That is the only part of Federalist 29 that even seems to apply to the discussion, and that tangentially. Am I missing something...?

[rogue06]

You'll have to show me where (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_F...t_(Dawson)/29). The word "militia" does not appear, the word "arms" does not appear, the word "member" does not appear, and the word "military" occurs once in the opening paragraph, where Hamilton affirms the right of the government to raise a military force. That is the only part of Federalist 29 that even seems to apply to the discussion, and that tangentially. Am I missing something...?

It is possible that I have the wrong number for the paper, but I remember discussing it in one of the criminology/criminal law classes I took in college.

[Zymologist]

I have a nice copy of The Federalist, but I've never taken the time to read it. This thread is making me wonder if I should bump it up the list....

[Littlejoe]

You'll have to show me where (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_F...t_(Dawson)/29). The word "militia" does not appear, the word "arms" does not appear, the word "member" does not appear, and the word "military" occurs once in the opening paragraph, where Hamilton affirms the right of the government to raise a military force. That is the only part of Federalist 29 that even seems to apply to the discussion, and that tangentially. Am I missing something...?

Hey Carp! Long time no see!

I've read through the thread and Ummm...are you sure you're reading the correct paper?

The Federalist 29

Concerning the Militia
Hamilton for the Daily Advertiser. Thursday, January 10, 1788.
To the People of the State of New York:
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militiawould be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense.

I believe the part that is being referenced is the 6th paragraph:

``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 in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, 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 numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. 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.

To me, this reads that to require citizens to actually be in the militia and to drill and train would be "injurious". The bolded part is the germane point to the discussion.

[carpedm9587]

Hey Carp! Long time no see!

I've read through the thread and Ummm...are you sure you're reading the correct paper?

The Federalist 29

Concerning the Militia
Hamilton for the Daily Advertiser. Thursday, January 10, 1788.
To the People of the State of New York:
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militiawould be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense.

I believe the part that is being referenced is the 6th paragraph:

``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 in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, 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 numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. 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.

To me, this reads that to require citizens to actually be in the militia and to drill and train would be "injurious". The bolded part is the germane point to the discussion.

Yeah - I failed to note that there are two separate Federalist numbering systems, and I used the OTHER one - not the one I believe Pixie referenced. Thanks for catching that.

But this passage says nothing about "personal protection" as it was intended in my original post. Hamilton is simply saying that it is not practical to have a "well regulated" militia to the degree that would be desirable because of its impact on the productivity of the country. He is stating the best they can hope for is to ensure the yeomanry is armed, and to assemble them once or twice a year for training. The entire discussion is STILL in the context of the citizenry being armed in support of militia activities.

Now I have no doubt that the people of that era also saw guns as tools - for hunting - as well as for personal protection, especially in frontier areas where there was little or no law enforcement. But the discussion at the federal level, and the legal arguments concerning the 2nd Amendment were primarily focused on this militia intent until we reach the 1970s, where the emphasis shifts dramatically, and continues to shift until the 2nd amendment is formally reintepreted in 2008 with an emphasis on personal protection, rather than the militia focus (both for internal and external protection) it originally had. Most of that was at the behest of the NRA leadeship and the gun lobby.

You'll also note it follows closely on the heels of the civil rights struggles. Indeed, a great DEAL of gun control legislation was created immediately after the civil war and again in the 1920s with the rise of the KKK. The great fear was that African Americans, post civil war, would arm themselves. All of that gun control legislation is conveniently forgotten beginning in the 1970s, when the new mantra is, "we have to arm ourselves - in self-defense against the criminal element."

[lilpixieofterror]

Yeah - I failed to note that there are two separate Federalist numbering systems, and I used the OTHER one - not the one I believe Pixie referenced. Thanks for catching that.

But this passage says nothing about "personal protection" as it was intended in my original post. Hamilton is simply saying that it is not practical to have a "well regulated" militia to the degree that would be desirable because of its impact on the productivity of the country. He is stating the best they can hope for is to ensure the yeomanry is armed, and to assemble them once or twice a year for training. The entire discussion is STILL in the context of the citizenry being armed in support of militia activities.

Now I have no doubt that the people of that era also saw guns as tools - for hunting - as well as for personal protection, especially in frontier areas where there was little or no law enforcement. But the discussion at the federal level, and the legal arguments concerning the 2nd Amendment were primarily focused on this militia intent until we reach the 1970s, where the emphasis shifts dramatically, and continues to shift until the 2nd amendment is formally reintepreted in 2008 with an emphasis on personal protection, rather than the militia focus (both for internal and external protection) it originally had. Most of that was at the behest of the NRA leadeship and the gun lobby.

You'll also note it follows closely on the heels of the civil rights struggles. Indeed, a great DEAL of gun control legislation was created immediately after the civil war and again in the 1920s with the rise of the KKK. The great fear was that African Americans, post civil war, would arm themselves. All of that gun control legislation is conveniently forgotten beginning in the 1970s, when the new mantra is, "we have to arm ourselves - in self-defense against the criminal element."

[lilpixieofterror]

Actually - reading Pixie's post, it appears to me that she is interpreting the protection against a tyrannical government as "personal protection." That may be a/the source of the confusion. Hamilton was clear that the militia's were part of protecting the citizenry against both a possible future tyrannical government, as well as protecting the new nation against outside forces. Both of those had to do with arms in support of a militia - the militia having two possible "adversaries." "Personal protection," as I used it, was intended to refer to protection of self against individual attack (hence "personal"). This, as Pixie noted in her post, is the "personal protection" shift that occured primarily beginning in the 1970s and culminating in the 2008 ruling.

He says that is the original personal protection, not the only form. If you think otherwise, go ahead and show any intentions that say otherwise.

[carpedm9587]

He says that is the original personal protection, not the only form. If you think otherwise, go ahead and show any intentions that say otherwise.

You'll have to point out that section, Pixie. I'm not finding it in any of the papers you cited. Indeed, after rereading them (I forgot how much parsing the language of the 1700s makes my head ache), I also did a word search. "persons" appears. But "personal" does not appear in 28 and 29, and "protection" only appears in the contect of the role of the militia in protecting the state. "Personal" does appear in 46, but in the context of talking about the role of the state versus the federal government in seeing to the personal needs of the people.

So exactly what are you referring to?

For anyone else following, you can find the papers in question here:

• http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed28.asp
• http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp
• http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp

[Jedidiah]

You'll have to point out that section, Pixie. I'm not finding it in any of the papers you cited. Indeed, after rereading them (I forgot how much parsing the language of the 1700s makes my head ache), I also did a word search. "persons" appears. But "personal" does not appear in 28 and 29, and "protection" only appears in the contect of the role of the militia in protecting the state. "Personal" does appear in 46, but in the context of talking about the role of the state versus the federal government in seeing to the personal needs of the people.

So exactly what are you referring to?

For anyone else following, you can find the papers in question here:

• http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed28.asp
• http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp
• http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp

Your are picking nits. It has been clearly shown that the individual right to possess guns was well established regardless of what one paper or another does or does not say.

[carpedm9587]

Your are picking nits. It has been clearly shown that the individual right to possess guns was well established regardless of what one paper or another does or does not say.

At no point did I ever say that the right to own guns was not established. What is being discussed is what the right was established FOR - not that it wasn't established. The focus, since the 1970 has been on "personal protection." But the focus prior to that, legislatively and judicially, was for support of a "well regulated militia." It was also, clearly, the intent of the founders when they wrote the amendment. I have seen nothing yet that suggests otherwise.

Since then, the founders clearly moved away from their original view of the primary protection of the government being via a "well regulated militia" and moved to a standing army. We also have a legislative and judicial history of banning arms that are clearly meant for military purposes (i.e., used by that standing army).

Ergo - IMO - there is legislative and judicial precedent for gun control regulation. What we lack, right now, is the data that would tell us WHAT gun controls (if any) are workable strategies to reduce the gun violence in our country. So our first step, I beleive, is to reverse the legislation that prohibits such research and gather the data we need to make reasoned and reasonable decisions.

[Jedidiah]

At no point did I ever say that the right to own guns was not established. What is being discussed is what the right was established FOR - not that it wasn't established. The focus, since the 1970 has been on "personal protection." But the focus prior to that, legislatively and judicially, was for support of a "well regulated militia." It was also, clearly, the intent of the founders when they wrote the amendment. I have seen nothing yet that suggests otherwise.

Since then, the founders clearly moved away from their original view of the primary protection of the government being via a "well regulated militia" and moved to a standing army. We also have a legislative and judicial history of banning arms that are clearly meant for military purposes (i.e., used by that standing army).

Ergo - IMO - there is legislative and judicial precedent for gun control regulation. What we lack, right now, is the data that would tell us WHAT gun controls (if any) are workable strategies to reduce the gun violence in our country. So our first step, I beleive, is to reverse the legislation that prohibits such research and gather the data we need to make reasoned and reasonable decisions.

You must have missed several past posts on this thread and many quotes by the founding fathers.

[carpedm9587]

You must have missed several past posts on this thread and many quotes by the founding fathers.

I may have missed some posts. There are only so many hours in a day. I do not recall any posts about the founding fathers that said anything to contradict what I have posted.