Our Forefathers Dealt with Liberals.

[DuneHopper]

I thought I would start a topic on the Federalist papers. I get so tired of everyone misunderstanding on all sides the intent of the laws and the discussions long before the 2nd Amendment was finalized. Here are some excerpts from the Federalist papers to read, next time someone says the 2nd Amendment means something else tell them this. These are some small parts of discussions and speeches showing clear the intent and reasoning.

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 t
he peopleare 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 in 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. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion tha
t 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. It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favour of privilege,
reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. It is evident, therefore, that, according
to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions, professedly founded upon the power of the people and executed by their immediate representatives and servants.
James Madison

They might urge with a semblance of reason that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given,
and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication
that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the
national government. Alexander Hamilton,

The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative
balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices
during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature by deputies of
their own election: these are wholly new discoveries, or have made their principal progress
towards perfection in modern times. They are means, and powerful means, by which the
excellencies of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or
avoided. Alexander Hamilton

A standing force, therefore, is a dangerous, at the same time that it may be a necessary,
provision. On the smallest scale it has its inconveniences. On an extensive scale its
cons equences may be fatal. On any scale it is an object of laudable circumspection and
precaution. A wise nation will combine all these considerations; and, whilst it does not rashly preclude itself from any resource which may become essential to its safety,
will exert all its prudence in diminishing both the necessity and the danger of resorting to one which may be inauspicious to its liberties. James Madison.

The people can never wilfully betray their own interests; but they may possibly be
betrayed by the representatives of the people; and the danger will be evidently greater
where the whole legislative trust is lodged in the hands of one body of men than where the
concurrence of separate and dissimilar bodies is required in every public act. An absolute or qualified negative in the executive upon the acts of the legislative body is admitted, by the ablest adepts in political science, to be an indispensable barrier against the encroachments of the latter upon the former. And it may, perhaps, with no less reason, be contended that the powers relating to impeachments are, as before intimated, an essential check in the hands of that body upon the encroachments of the executive. Alexander Hamilton

Read More

 

[PaulB47]

I don't have much use for a power-centralizer like Alexander Hamilton (just another lying politician), and I'd rather read the anti-Federalist papers. That's just me though...

 

[DuneHopper]

I don't have much use for a power-centralizer like Alexander Hamilton (just another lying politician), and I'd rather read the anti-Federalist papers. That's just me though...

You do realize that these speeches and meeting let to the Amendments completion?
I agree that many a politician are dishonest however without the events of these speeches and meetings there most likely would have been no existing 2nd Amendment.
The framers (minus several dissenters) and other Federalists vehemently argued that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary. The Anti-Federalists exploited this apparent weakness by methodically attacking nearly every clause in the Constitution as a tyrannical mandate subject to no constraints. In order to outmaneuver the Anti-Federalists at the ratifying conventions, the Federalists compiled a list of the least restrictive Anti-Federalist demands and promised to have them passed through the first Congress when the Constitution was ratified. The predecessor to Madison's Second Amendment came from dissenter George Mason's proposals at the 1788 Virginia Ratifying Convention. In Section 17 of the proposal, Mason combined, word for word, a portion of the Massachusetts' Declaration of Rights stating that the people have a right "to keep and to bear arms" with Article 13 from Virginia's Declaration of Rights (which he also helped write) concerning a well-regulated militia as the defense against a standing army.
The Anti-federal view was based on the English ( not American) Bill of Rights however they only protected individuals from the crown, not from the Parliament. The American conception of constitutional rights drastically differed from the English conception. For this reason, when Madison introduced the Bill of Rights in Congress, he specifically said the reasoning behind the English Bill of Rights is "inapplicable." The founders did not need to look more than a decade back in order to find a much more relevant example of the danger of standing armies. On September 1st, 1774, General Thomas Gage had a secret military detail seize publicly owned gun powder in the Charlestown powder house. By October 19th, 1774, the British had halted all arms transportation through Boston. To put this in perspective, when the Governor of Virginia seized some public powder and had it placed on a British vessel, Patrick Henry lead a historic march to obtain possession or reimbursement. This explains why Massachusetts was the only state at the time whose declaration of rights included "keeping" as well as "bearing" arms. It also explains why Mason chose to borrow specifically from Massachusetts and not other states declarations with "bear arms" language.

This is just my take on it. hopefully others will chime in.

 

[PaulB47]

You do realize that these speeches and meeting let to the Amendments completion?

Well, I know this led to the trashing of the much-superior Articles of Confederation. So excuse my lack of enthusiasm for it.

As to the 2nd, I don't need it. What I need is the will to kill anyone who attempts confiscating my guns. That is what deters the bastards, not some writing on parchment. You think they take their oath of office seriously? The oath is merely the first lie they make while in office.

I will admit the existence of the 2nd motivates ordinary people - to a certain extent anyway. But 20,000 gun laws seem to demonstrate it doesn't do the job very well. Determination and will is a lot more reliable motivator.

http://javelinpress.com/hologram_of_liberty.html

 

[Koda]

good thread Dunehopper. None of us would have any guns today if it wasnt for the 2nd Amendment. I do think its important to understand why our founding fathers put that in our constitution, its evident in many of their quotes. All things considered I think its amazing it was added makes me wish todays politicians had the ethics our founding fathers did back then.