Is Gun Ownership a Right?

[brewguy]

I was just watching an interview with the late Justice Scalia. He said the SC often goes back to the federalist papers to help discern what the framers were talking about in the Constitution. That got me wondering about the 2nd amendment and what kind of language was included in the federalist papers regarding the militia, when i found this gem in federalist 29:

`But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.'


WOW. You always hear people saying that the 2nd exists to prevent tyranny and as a check to the abuse of standing federal armies, and you like to agree with it, but I never did actually see it written anywhere. But low and behold, on January 9, 1788, Alexander Hamilton laid it out in plain (for the time) English!

It's interesting to me how we pick and choose what we like. Clearly our standing army is unconstitutional but we ignore that because everyone likes the military. It's right there in the federalist papers, the militia is to exist in order to prevent a standing army from forming.

[john9001]

They did not like or feel a large standing army was necessary, but a standing army is not unconstitutional.

[Orlov556]

It's interesting to me how we pick and choose what we like. Clearly our standing army is unconstitutional but we ignore that because everyone likes the military. It's right there in the federalist papers, the militia is to exist in order to prevent a standing army from forming.

Maybe im reading it wrong, but if you were to take that paragraph and put it into words I understand, it says basically "we dont need or want a standing army, but if we do need to have one later, its ok, because the citizens can be armed the same"... so it doesn't necessarily prohibit it, IMO.

[robert slabaugh]

It's interesting to me how we pick and choose what we like. Clearly our standing army is unconstitutional but we ignore that because everyone likes the military. It's right there in the federalist papers, the militia is to exist in order to prevent a standing army from forming.

President Eisenhower, among others, tried to warn the American public about the military-industrial complex. The history will show that since at least the 1890's, our military has constantly been deployed somewhere outside the USA. Huge amounts of our GDP is devoted to feeding a monster that will not go back into its cage. It bankrupted the Soviet Union trying to keep up, but it has also done a great job of sucking up resources better spent on things like infrastructure.

[Bang]

Or cures of diseases. But "better spent" may be an oversimplification of the reasons these wars might be necessary or not.

[brewguy]

Maybe im reading it wrong, but if you were to take that paragraph and put it into words I understand, it says basically "we dont need or want a standing army, but if we do need to have one later, its ok, because the citizens can be armed the same"... so it doesn't necessarily prohibit it, IMO.

This is also in the constitution. “The Congress shall have Power To …raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” I guess it could just be saying they need to reauthorize every two years. Given this and the federalist papers it's pretty clear the founders did not want a standing army, they knew what they are used for. Exactly what we are using it for today. At least back then they took the spoils.

[Bang]

How can the premise that a primary reason for a national government is to defend the nation wind up being kicked left and right? Citizens can only defend on the soil beneath. We cannot ourselves group up and go overseas (such as WWII) any more than we can get all states to agree on an interstate.

[brewguy]

How can the premise that a primary reason for a national government is to defend the nation wind up being kicked left and right? Citizens can only defend on the soil beneath. We cannot ourselves group up and go overseas (such as WWII) any more than we can get all states to agree on an interstate.

That was also the point, they didn't want us going over seas.

[Parrisk]

Yes!!

And I firmly believe it is the 2nd Amendment that protects the other Amendments and has kept the boogie man at bay since 1776

[Carnes]

They did not like or feel a large standing army was necessary, but a standing army is not unconstitutional.

I think the Federalist, and Anti-Federalist papers should be required reading in every school.

The concept of 'unconstitutional' has become wildly misconstrued in our current culture. The US Constitution does not provide expressed powers to have a standing army the way we do now. THAT clearly expresses the lack of 'constitutionality' of our current circumstance. And if folks were more familiar with the founding documents, that fact would be obvious.

Complacency kills.