did you know that the phrase “to keep and bear arms” referred to serving in the military when it was written?
Prior to and through the Eighteenth Century, predominate usage of the expression "bear arms" exclusively referred to the profession of military service, as opposed to the use of firearms by civilians[3][4][5].
"In late-eighteenth-century parlance, bearing arms was a term of art with an obvious military and legal connotation. . . . As a review of the Library of Congress’s data base of congressional proceedings in the revolutionary and early national periods reveals, the thirty uses of ‘bear arms’ and ‘bearing arms’ in bills, statutes, and debates of the Continental, Confederation, and United States’ Congresses between 1774 and 1821 invariably occur in a context exclusively focused on the army or the militia.[3]"
As an example, the expression ‘bear arms’ is contained in the United States Declaration of Independence in the sense of ‘military service’ on a warship, as part of an indictment of the King of Great Britain for conscripting Colonial sailors to serve on British warships.
im not saying that people in the military can have guns but that the term right to bear arms literally meant to have and serve in an army not have your own gun to shoot who you please
Posted in military firearms
December 25th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
maybe it was left broad and generalized for a reason?
December 25th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
America had no standing army when that was written, it was meant to protect a militia, unfortunately people have decided it means differently.
December 25th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
LOL, you think they had to explicity say that people had the right to have guns if they were in the army?? Maybe there are 30 documents out there saying that computer programmers have the right to own computers.
Get this garbage off the internet.
December 25th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
I know for a fact that it did not. The purpose was to /enable/ the formation of militias. You can’t form a militia if your common citizens aren’t allowed to have weapons. Militias are not military – para-military, perhaps.
December 25th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
When this was written, we’d just finished a war on our own soil, the success of which depended in large part on citizen volenteers (the local militia) armed with their own weapons!
December 25th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
To this day, Federal law defines the militia as all male citizens capable of bearing arms. Duh.
December 25th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
And did you know that militia was probably interpreted as:
"The entire able-bodied male population of a community, town, or state, available to be called to arms against an invading enemy, to enforce the law, or to respond to a disaster."
But we have FEMA now, and that works so well, right?
December 25th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Yes, and did you know that they wanted to make sure that the population were able to keep weapons on them for another reason as well. They feared a strong federal government usurping the rights of the people and didn’t want to leave them defenseless.
December 25th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
The citizens were the military.
December 25th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
The founding father did not want a large standing army but all the citizens would be the army if need be. If the town bell rang a set way they all would report. Plus hunting was a big part of life still back then.
December 25th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Cool, but why are there two topics separated by a coma:
"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."
Are you assuming that they are refering to the peoples right to keep and bear arms through the Militia ? I guess I can see that. But, The mindset of the time of those who created the constitution was anything but…
Thomas Jefferson: "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)
Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
Just some of the examples.
December 25th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Actually you are so wrong you could not be more wrong if you tried.
The phrase keep and bear arms was written because of the prohibition on arms manufacture by Brittan. It refers to the threat posed by the one military presence that most scared the colonials: Indians.
If you lived in a space occasionally controlled by ‘savages’ you wouldn’t want to be told you could not defend yourself because those ‘savages’ might learn the tricks of self defense and turn the tables on the Empire either. You’d want to be able to defend yourself with all your mind.
But if you were the Empire…you’d not care so much about a tiny little town 3,000 miles away. Your idea of proper defense defended you. If the Savages got a few guns what of it? Guns break. If the Indians can’t fix them, then they won’t use them long and they certainly won’t go the next step to build better ships than your Empire has and sink your nation.
So, to bear arms means literally to make arms, as in to bear children.
OK?
Your not referencing the reasons for revolt. By the time of the revolt these laws had been rescinded. But King Philips War was on the minds of Revolutionary Americans.
The memory of not being able to produce any refined metal beyond pig iron by British Law was on the minds of those looking towards settlement of the French territories. They didn’t want similar laws preventing settled peoples west of Appalachia from defending themselves; guns break and they need to be constantly "born" forth from the iron to steel.
December 25th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Well, it actually related to the fact that there wasn’t a significant standing army at the time. Free societies have never been comfortable with the concept of a large full-time military (witness our military – a little over 1 million full time soldiers, etc. in a society of over 200 million). The thought at the time was that it was necessary for the common good that able bodied men (sorry ladies, that was the times) be prepared to serve when needed. To do so, they needed to have the right to "bear arms."
The controversy, of course, is whether this still applies in our current society. Do we really believe that all of the current gun owners would drop everything and come a runnin’ if there was a need? We no longer have organized militias, other than the National Guard, and the Guard has its own weapons which it issues if necessary to soldiers.
Reality check – the Second Amendment may not be the best justification for allowing law abiding citizens to own guns, but it kind of works and it’s unlikely to be changed. I think that the better point is that criminals will obtain guns regardless of laws restricting them. While reasonable gun control legislation (gasp! did he say regulation?) should not cause as much heartburn as it does (really, do you need a .50 cal or an AK to hunt?), no amount of controls will make us safe from truly determined criminals. After all, it’s not that hard to fabricate a firearm with basic tools.
By the way, before the gun nuts excoriate me, I own weapons and support private ownership, but I do believe in reasonable regulation.
December 25th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
I think you need to re-read the term militia which was what the founding fathers were talking about and how all land owners basically became part of the militias of the time. They in no way were full time militaries of today.
December 25th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
I do hope that you aren’t thinking of the national guard as the militia being mentioned- it was formed 130 years after the 2nd amendment was written.
These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals.
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers is a common definition of a militia…
SO- the right to bear arms is a right of the people to form a militia.
Or did you have another question hidden in there?