One of the most frequent arguments for ‘gun control*’ is that the Founders would never have allowed private ownership of something like a cannon, battleship or tank.  The problem with this claim is that they did allow private ownership of cannons and battleships.  Therefore, it is unlikely that they would have denied private ownership of armored fighting vehicles.

The objection that the Founders would never have allowed the private ownership of something like a cannon is negated by a man by the name of John Stark.  He not only owner several cannons, they were used in the Battle of Bunker Hill. In fact, one of his cannons is still used in ceremonies at the Bunker Hill memorial.

Then there were the privateers:

These were privately owned and armed warships!  Not only did the Founders allow them, they contracted with their owners to help with the Revolution.

This is a good overview of privateers in the Revolution:

Privateers and Mariners in the Revolutionary War

Then there is this:

The First Armored Car was a Terrifying War Machine

If the British, who had a history of imposing much greater restrictions on the private ownership of weaponry, if they would allow the private ownership of an armored car — and in the late 1800’s, no less — why should we assume that the Founders would have objected to the same?  Especially when the founders sought to make sure the People would have the ability to oppose an army that might be armed with such a new invention?

Therefore, rather than getting down into the weeds by arguing this point to absurdity, let us just agree that gun control advocates should concede the facts: the Founders did — in fact — allow ownership of both cannons and armed warships.  And, given the fact that the British allowed private ownership of armored fighting vehicles, it is likely that you will find that these were allowed in America, as well — at least before the rise of the Progressive era.  Now, by all accounts of reason, these examples mean that this objection has been defeated.  So, can we please put it to rest and move on, as only the irrational will pursue it further.

[*NOTE: I use the term, ‘gun control,’ but this is not exactly an accurate description of the issue at hand.  The issue at hand is — in truth — the pursuit of denying people their Natural Right to self-defense.  As such, it is a form of tyranny as it is an attack on another person and actually affirms the Founders wisdom in providing us with our Second Amendment protections.]

One of the most frequent arguments for ‘gun control*’ is that the Founders could not have foreseen inventions such as machine guns or other weapons of mass destruction.  The problem with this claim is that they knew about machine guns and other weapons of mass destruction because they already existed.  In fact, they existed long before the Revolutionary War.

The pursuit of rapid-fire weapons reaches back to the dawn of time.  Before black powder, the ancients had many inventions for firing arrows or catapults in rapid succession.  And before the Founders, that quest had continued into the realm of powdered weapons.  The first crew-served, rapid fire weapon, the Puckle gun, was invented in 1718, and it was privately owned — by an Englishman! 

This is a good summary of the history of rapid fire weapons:

Before Gatling – Who Was The First To Invent A Rapid-Fire Gun?

There is a rather humorous way to illustrate “The Founders Couldn’t Foresee That” fallacy.  Gun control advocates tend to reject it by saying it’s not the same thing, but it is — because it aims at the principle and not the specific example of that principle.  The illustration goes something like this:

If we apply the gun control way of thinking fairly…

But if we applied the Founders’ principles fairly, we get this…

Do you see the difference?

Therefore, rather than getting down into the weeds by arguing this point to absurdity, let us just agree that gun control advocates should concede the facts: the Founders were well aware of the existence of rapid fire weapons, and, therefore, could easily image a time when those weapons would become more destructive.  Now, by all accounts of reason, these examples mean that this objection has been defeated.  So, can we please put it to rest and move on, as only the irrational will pursue it further.

[*NOTE: I use the term, ‘gun control,’ but this is not exactly an accurate description of the issue at hand.  The issue at hand is — in truth — the pursuit of denying people their Natural Right to self-defense.  As such, it is a form of tyranny as it is an attack on another person and actually affirms the Founders wisdom in providing us with our Second Amendment protections.]

Now that we know the Founders said the People are the militia, the militia is independent of government and is intended to be a bulwark against government tyranny, let’s address a more difficult subject.  What did the Founders mean when they said the People have the right to ‘arms?’  Did they leave us anything to help us understand what sort of ‘arms’ did they have in mind?

This is a more difficult question to answer.  Not because there is no evidence to help us determine the answer, but because the Founders did not address this point directly.  Therefore, we are forced to consider indirect evidence by which we may draw our conclusion.  Consequently, this post will be longer than the rest in this series.  I be the reader’s indulgence, as while it is the longest post, it is one of the most important (which is probably not a coincidence).

Once again, we must go back to the time of the founding and consider the Founders intentions in the context of their times.  Or, as Jefferson and Madison both put it:

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

— Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security

–James Madison, letter to Henry Lee, June 25, 1824

So, what motivated the Founders to write the Second Amendment?  We must first remember that the Founders had just fought to free themselves from a tyrannical government.  Now they were concerned with insuring the preservation of the liberty they had just won for themselves, as well as their posterity.  Therefore, whatever meaning the Founders intended to be implied by the term, ‘arms,’ we must draw a conclusion that is consistent with their expressed intentions: to provide the People with the ability to defend the nation; suppress rebellion or insurrection; and to defend themselves against a tyrannical government and whatever army it may bring to bear against them.

Here is where we must use logic.  First, what did the word, ‘arms,’ mean in their day?  According to the Webster’s Dictionary of 1828 (edited for the purposes at hand):

Arms

‘ARMS, noun plural [Latin arma.]

EDITORIAL NOTE: I am well aware that the conclusions in this post will draw strenuous objection from many fronts.  However, I will deal with the most obvious of them in separate posts.  The purpose of this post is meant to be narrow, so it can be more easily understood.  That purpose being to determine whether or not the Founders actually left us sufficient evidence to determine whether they intended the Second Amendment to cover private ownership of military weapons.

ADDENDUM: 28 Feb 2018 (please follow this link for an explanation of this addendum)

I formed my position on the Founders’ original intent behind their use of the word, ‘arms,’ long before I wrote this post.  However, it was not until today that I found the following passage.  To date, it is the clearest, most forceful assertion I have found in the Founders’ writings.  It leaves no room for argument or debate over the original meaning of the Second Amendment.  It clearly links the militia to the individual American, and the individual American’s birth right to own and bear any military weapon of the common soldier.  It even allows that the Founders recognized such weapons can be and are terrible, but that they asserted this right nonetheless.

“The powers of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry (farmers/landowners collectively) of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible [standing] army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no right to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American.”

— Tench Coxe

Now, I fully realize the peril of making blanket statement such as the one I am about to make, but — in this case — I do not see how there can be any other rational conclusion:

From the whole of the historic record — both in the context of the times and in the body of the historical record left to us — It is clear that the Founders intended the Second Amendment to block Congress from having any authority over the individual American and his birth-right to keep and bear the military weaponry of a soldier.

Now that we have seen that the Founders said the militia is the People, and that, as such, the militia is subject to but independent of the government, let us look at why the Founders were so concerned about retaining an independent militia.  In other words, let’s see if the Founders told us what the Second Amendment is really supposed to be and why they gave it to us.

We will start by remembering that, at the time they wrote it, the Founders had just come out of the Revolutionary War, where they had to fight to free themselves from a tyrannical and lawless government.  Next, we will look at just a small selection of what the Founders had to say on the issue of how best to preserve liberty:

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”

– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”

– George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”

– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

– St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

“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.”

– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

“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, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

– Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

The first thing the reader may notice is that they are unfamiliar with many of these Founders.  There is good reason for this.  If our schools and political leaders actually taught us about the 270-something plus men considered to be ‘Founders,’ and we read what all of them had to say concerning the issues of our own times, much of the current political agenda being pushed on us would fall apart.  This is because, as we can see above, the founders did comment on the things that still concern us today, and they were clear and forceful in their opinion of them, as well as their intentions for how to deal with them in the formation of our governmental system.  Or, in other words, if we looked at the whole of the Founders’ writings, they would utterly destroy the current political narrative!

In this case, the Founders would destroy the assertion that the Second Amendment was meant to protect the right to hunt and even for personal self-defense.  These things are included under the protection of the Second Amendment, but it should be clear that the Founders’ primary aim was to preserve the ability to oppose the government and any army it may raise and turn against the People. Therefore, there is no reason to beat this matter any further: it is clear that the Founders intended the Second Amendment to be a threat the the government, and to preserve the Peoples’ ability to resist that government should it ever turn on them.

Now, in a rational world, this would end the debate over the purpose of the Second Amendment.  But then, we no longer live in such a world…

Having established that the Founders defined the militia as the whole of the People and not the army (or National Guard), let us now consider whether or not the militia is under the control of the government.  And if so, to what extent does the government’s control extend over the militia?  We’ll start by remembering the context of their times.

The Founders expressly asserted that all power rests with the People, not the government.  As its creator, it is not the People who serve the government, but the government which serves the People.  As the creator of government, the People retain the authority to change or abolish that same government.  This relationship of ultimate authority over the government includes the militia and the individual right to keep and bear arms:

“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.”

— James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…”

— James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“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.”

— Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

These are the words of just two of the Founders, but they are two of the most central figures in the shaping and establishment of our system of governance. As such, they are authoritative on the original intent of the Founders on the issue of which is superior: the government or the People.  They are quite clear that it is the People who stand over the government.  By extension, this applies to the militia, who have been defined as the People, where all political power and authority lies.

However, at the same time the Founders asserted the People are over the government, they also included language in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, as well as the Second Amendment that could be interpret as granting the government control over the militia. This is where many people seem to get confused — especially if they read the Constitution and Second Amendment with a modern understanding of language and government.  But it isn’t that difficult to determine the Founders’ original intent on this point.

First, if we interpret Article I, Section 8 and/or the Second Amendment’s stipulation that the militia be well regulated as placing the militia under government control, it would create a contradiction with the Founders’ expressed intentions that the militia remain independent from the government.  This is because they would have placed their very means of resisting government tyranny solely into the hands of that very government. Therefore, we must see if we can find an understanding of the Founders’ language that resolves this apparent contradiction for, if we can, it will most likely help us better understand their original intentions.

We’ll go back to the historic context once more.  We have already mentioned that the Founders had just fought the Revolutionary War, but we must also remember they had just seen the failure of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation failed because they did not provide for a strong enough central authority.  They could not force the States to keep their part of the Social Contract.  the Founders were anything but naive, so they would have understood that the lack of a central command would be even more devastating to the militia.  Therefore, just as they gave the Federal government limited authority over the States, they gave it limited authority over the militia.

Today, we think of the Federal government as a national government — but is was never meant to be.  It was only intended to be an arbiter between and over the States, not the People.  The States remained sovereign.  if it ever became tyrannical, they could object to and even resist the Federal government.  Still, so long as the government functioned within its lawful limits, the States agreed to recognize the Federal governments authority.  But this agreement did not mean the Federal government had direct control over the several States.  It only had authority over those things which fell within the realm of the Enumerated Powers specified in the Constitution and nothing more.

Well, the same relationship exists between the government and the militia: the government has limited authority over the militia.  It is tasked with insuring the militia is properly armed, organized in a military manner, and that it trains in the current military disciplines.  The government is also given the authority to call out the militia in times of civil unrest or insurrection, rebellion and times of war.  That’s it.  This is the extent of the authority over the militia granted to the government.  And even then, that authority is only good if the government is operating under the restrictions of the Constitution as it was understood at the time of ratification!

Now, look closely at the authority the Founders granted the government over the militia.  They are to insure the militia is well armed, but the Founders did not grant the government the authority to buy or store those weapons.  The Founders said the government is to insure the militia is well organized and trained, but there is no provision to allow the government to stipulate that structure or provide for that training.  it can do all of this for an army, should Congress raise one.  But the militia is not the army, and there is no Enumerated Power authorizing government expenditure on the militia.  Therefore, there is no specific language in regards to the arming, organizing and training of the militia that places it perpetually under government control.  That leaves the calling out of the militia.

At the time the Constitution was ratified, the Federal government was tasked with placing certain demands upon the several States, such as levying proportional taxes on each State.  However, the Federal government had no authority to tell the States how to raise those taxes because the authority to raise Federal revenue did not give the Federal government control of the States.  It only had the authority to tax, and then, only so long as it was operating lawfully.  Again, the same contractual relationship exists between the government and the militia.  The government has the authority to call out the militia for specific reasons, and then, only for as long as those conditions apply.  Therefore, as with the authority to tax, there is nothing in the language authorizing the government to call out the militia that grants perpetual control over the militia.

If we understand the historical context, the Founders’ goals, and their embrace of Natural Rights, it should be readily apparent that they would never subordinate their Natural Right of self-defense to anyone, especially to the government.  To do so would mean surrendering their only defense against future tyranny.  It would also place them in direct contradiction with themselves.  Therefore, it is unreasonable to assume that the militia is a part of the government or under the perpetual control of the government — especially when we consider that the militia is the People, who created the government.  It would be more reasonable to assume that like the States, the militia is to subordinate itself to the government, but only if and when it is acting within its proper and lawful authority.  This means, just as the States are sovereign,  the militia is independent of the government,

ADDENDUM: 28 Feb 2018 (please follow this link for an explanation of this addendum)

I have sense learned that my original argument in this post is flawed in that it conflates two separate issues related to understanding the original intentions behind the Second Amendment.  I should have first addressed what the Founders meant by ‘militia,’ then argued as to whether or not that the right to keep in bear arms in connection to the militia also includes the right of an individual to keep and bear arms.  For the same reasons explained in my above link (please follow this link for an explanation of this addendum), I will not split this post into two new posts addressing each part of this issue separately.  Rather, I will keep with my attempt to tackle both at the same time, but I will finish driving my argument to the conclusion I should have made from the start.

Now, before I try to argue that my original conclusions are still valid, or worse, expand on them, let me stop to make sure I acknowledge the position held by most people who reject the claim that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arm.  I will do this by presenting two of the most powerful arguments I have found the other side has to offer:

Second Amendment Fallacies

Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment

Both of the arguments in these links disagree with the conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Instead, they both argue that the Second Amendment only protects the right to keep and bear arms in connection with the militia.  In my opinion, the argument in the first link is the strongest, but they are both necessary reading to this debate as they both present strong, rational arguments for their conclusions.

Now, assuming that the reader has read both of the arguments in the links above, let me state that I do not disagree with their conclusions!  Yes, you read that correctly: I agree that the Second Amendment protection is connected to the membership in the militia.  However, it is also fallacious to stop there, and that is the mistake made by all those who argue that this is where the Second Amendment’s protection ends: with the militia.  After arguing that the Second Amendment is connected to membership in the militia, one must be sure to define what the Founders meant by ‘militia.’

I have already argued that the ‘militia’ is the People: the whole of every individual citizen.  I did that in my original post.  Still, in order to make sure the reader knows I have not ‘cherry-picked’ quotes from the Founders to paint a false impression of what they meant by ‘militia,’ I offer this link:

What the Founding Fathers Meant by the “Militia”

And to offer a counter to the word-parsing in the second link supporting the conclusion that our Second Amendment rights end with the militia:

WHAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED: A LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF THE RIGHT TO “BEAR ARMS”

Now we apply simple reason to this debate:

— We start by accepting the claim that the Second Amendment only gives the right to keep and bear arms to the militia.

— The Founders said that the militia is us, the People: the whole of every individual citizen.

— Therefore, if the militia is the people; and the people is a collection of the individual citizen; and the People do not suddenly become another, single entity when they are organized together as the militia; then the right to keep and bear arms must extend to each individual member of the militia.

— And if the right extends to the individual; whereas those individual members are individual private citizens; it follows that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms extends past the militia to the individual, private citizen.

but this is only one of two possible arguments, both of which end with the conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.  Here is the second:

— We start by acknowledging that the Founders said the proper way to interpret their intentions is to go back and examine their original goal in relation to the times in which they lived.

— The Founders were seeking to preserve liberty and individual rights, and to defend them from all forms of tyranny.

— Tyranny is described, loosely, as forcing one’s will upon another.

— The Founders understood this to be the trampling of another person’s Natural Rights.

— The Founders said that Natural Rights are a product of Natural Law, and that such Natural Law is self-evident (the Declaration of Independence).

— The Founders also said that Natural Law was to be understood as John Locke expressed it, not as Thomas Hobbs did.

— Under Locke’s view of Natural Law, a government is the result of a Social Contract between all members of a given society.

— The Founders also believed that Natural Law prevents anyone from being able to give or demand anything in a contract that they do not possess, themselves.

— Therefore, in the formation of our government, the individual Colonists could not grant a right to the use of weaponry to either local, State or Federal government unless they possessed such a right, themselves.

— Which means, if they did grant such a right — and they did — then they must have each possessed the individual right to that same force (in this case, the right to keep and bear arms independent of the government).

— Furthermore, since the Founders said Natural Rights are inalienable to the individual, to then argue that the Second Amendment grants a right, or takes it away is to turn the whole of everything the Founders said and believed on its head.

Therefore, the most reasonable conclusion, and the only conclusion that does not negate the entirety of the Founders’ beliefs, is that they recognized the individual right to keep and bear arms — especially since any and every argument for the need of the militia to protect against a tyrannical government and its armies would apply equally to a group of citizens needing their own arms to protect against a tyrannical State government and its militia.  And les anyone bring up Hamilton’s assertion that the militia would never turn on itself, let me remind the reader that Hamilton, as with the link from the Federalist page provided above, were just that: Federalists.  And as history has shown, the Federalists were wrong in most every one of their assurances that their beliefs would provide security.  In fact, it was the Anti-Federalists, whose concerns have been borne out by history, who forced the ratification of the Second Amendment in the first place — and they did so specifically to protect against the very twisting of the Founders intent that we have seen in our nation since the rise of the Progressive era in the late 1890’s.