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…