(02-23-2022, 04:24 PM)mikesez Wrote: (02-23-2022, 03:34 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Lol. You need to go read transcripts from the early congressional conventions.
I've read the constitutions of all of the original 13 states. Connecticut and Rhode Island didn't bother amending their royal charters prior to adopting the US Constitution in 1788. That gives you 11 founding documents to potentially explain what is meant by the right of the people to keep and bear arms. 8 of these constitutions do not mention any right to bear arms. Virginia's implies that the public in general should not have arms.
The remaining 3 are NC, PA, and MA. Here are their statements:
- NC: XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in 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.
- PA: XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence 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.
- MA: Art. XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.
If you want to dig deeper, all 13 states derived the idea of their right to keep and bear arms from the English Bill of Rights of 1689:- That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
None of these four excerpts says or implies anything about any ability to resist or overthrow tyranny.
So, do you have any links to actual meeting minutes or transcripts or contemporaneous essays that might contradict me?
You just literally quoted my exact reasoning for why gun rights were given.
Defense of self and the state. It doesn't say anything about defending the federal government, it says the state. Who would be attacking the state? It would be another state or the federal government. The state and the people were very closely related. The people had direct control over their state and could vote them out or deal with it internally. The state then picked the federal representatives. It was all limited federal government then and they wanted to ensure that nothing happened and wouldn't have to fight for freedom again.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
