Monday, January 29, 2018

Expert Explains Founding Father's Intent for Second Amendment

Patrick Charles, a historian and legal scholar, spent almost 10 years digging deeply into the issue of gun rights and he has written a credible record of what he learned. Charles states: "the Second Amendment was neither legally intended nor legally understood by the Founding Fathers as protecting a right to armed individual self-defense."

Comments

Then how would we protect ourselves from tyrannical governments and black presidents?

Regardless, I am sure our Foundling Fathers never intended the 2nd Amendment to be a suicide pact.

#1 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-29 06:53 PM

From the review: "Nonetheless, by revealing weaknesses in the argument that our Founding Fathers wanted citizens to have totally free access to guns, Charles throws the issue of gun rights and gun control back at today's America. Elected leaders, guided by citizens and not by powerful interest groups, should feel free to decide for themselves, without intrusion from conflicting interpretations of the Second Amendment, what is best for society and for protecting our families."

Perhaps Charles throws the issue back at America. But America will continue to ignore it. Gun ownership has become so ingrained in the American culture that most of the politicos who aren't outright ammosexuals are afraid to even touch it. The cat is way to far out of the bag to stuff it back at this point. Unless there's some event that's actually capable of creating a seismic shift on sentiment about guns, (and if Vegas and Sandy Hook didn't do it, I don't know what could) we all might as well just get use to it and move on to other topics.

#2 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2018-01-29 06:54 PM

This was the established view until the Reagan Era and Scalia's very "living document" view, which most conservative, including Scalia, claim to abhor.

Well, that and the beginning of the NRA as a sales org for gun makers.

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2018-01-29 07:09 PM

The second amendment was a concession to the South. Blacks outnumbered plantation owners. Militias were established to protect the lives and property of whites. Guns were needed to give the minority the upper hand in maintaining their superior position. If you think about it, that's what people have always used guns against each other for. Guns are an important tools of the ruling minority, guns and laws.

#4 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-01-29 07:37 PM

Fortunately, the simple common man has greater wisdom than an intellectual devoid of said wisdom.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. Written by James Madison in response to calls from several states for
    greater constitutional protection for individual liberties,,
the Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power.

#5 | Posted by Daniel at 2018-01-29 07:40 PM

Who cares if Kim Jung Un has enough nukes and ICBMs to hit every major US city?

Nukes don't kill people, people kill people.

#6 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2018-01-29 07:53 PM

See how ******* stupid that sounds?

#7 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2018-01-29 07:53 PM

Mr. Charles is entitled to his opinion of history. It's generally presented in this law review. papers.ssrn.com

An opposite opinion of the history is presented in this law review. scholar.valpo.edu

#8 | Posted by et_al at 2018-01-29 07:59 PM

... Scalia's very "living document" view ...

Thanks for self-identifying as having never read Scalia's "original meaning" opinion in Heller. It goes to great lengths exploring much of the same historical material covered by Charles.

#9 | Posted by et_al at 2018-01-29 08:08 PM

I was under the impression that there is an inherent right to self-defense in common law.
Is that not the case?

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-29 08:29 PM

#9

Reading and comprehension are, at times, mutually exclusive for Corky.

#11 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-29 08:34 PM

Many years ago I listened to Robert Bork (remember him?) talk about the second amendment. He reached the same conclusion. He said the plain text of the amendment, the Federalist Papers, and contemporary documents made it plain that the Second Amendment applied to what today we call the National Guard. He said instead of wasting their time talking about the Second Amendment NRA should be working on an amendment that really did apply to individuals.

#12 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2018-01-29 09:19 PM

Patrick Charles is an extremely intelligent, observant and credible scholar. That doesn't mean the gun nuts seeking to expand gun rights ad infinitum will care in the least.

#13 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-01-29 09:19 PM

#11

Still no argument. At least et al is a real lawyer, even when he's wrong.

www.thenation.com

www.newyorker.com

www.newyorker.com

www.pbs.org

#14 | Posted by Corky at 2018-01-29 09:47 PM

If we believe this honorable academic, the founding fathers as a single mind wrote the second amendment to protect government and the constitution and not as a right to self defense of the individual. Ridiculous. Sad.

#LeftistBS

#15 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-01-29 10:24 PM

That the founding fathers intended the 2nd Amendment be for self-defense is laughable. It is ridiculous to think that a musket could be a self-defense weapon. In an era when there was very little crime, why would they even consider a need to have your musket under your bed to protect your family? Were they anticipating a need to drive away the Crips as they came to rob you of your drug stash? Or maybe they could foretell the zombie apocalypse. The ammosexuals have always tried to separate the clauses, but the second clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" makes no sense without the first clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." The founding fathers were opposed to the cost and loss of productivity of a standing army, they wanted local militias or as we call them today National Guard units to have their muskets ready to DEFEND the country, the constitution and the government, not the other way around. Any other reading is pretzel-like contortionism. George Washington led 13,000 of these well-regulated militiamen to put down the insurrection known as the "Whisky Rebellion." He also seized guns from those insurgents, so where's your "shall not be infringed" now? Washington believed in a strong central government; the founders wanted militias to ensure that the central government remained in power. After the Whisky Rebellion, Congress got concerned and passed the "Militia Acts" which required all military-age white males to purchase their own muskets and supplies for service in a local militia.

#16 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2018-01-29 11:43 PM

#16

Ramble...ramble...

Go read the two academic papers linked above.

Oh, and you also got the facts wrong. Washington used the power granted him by First Militia Act of 1792 to call up the militia in 1794 to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. The Second Militia of 1792 dealt with who was in the militia and the requirement that they arm themselves. And btw, the Second Amendment covers all "arms" not just muskets. That would include knives, hatchets, bow and arrows, spears etc.

On the prefatory and operative clauses, what good is a militia for keeping a free state if the government can disarm the people in it?

#17 | Posted by et_al at 2018-01-30 12:08 AM

"That the founding fathers intended the 2nd Amendment be for self-defense is laughable."

Especially since the term self defense doesn't appear in the text.

But more than that, why would a need for self-defense need to be asserted?

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-30 12:11 AM

Why would colonists need weapons for self defense? indians the French or just wild animals perhaps. You city people.

#19 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-01-30 12:11 AM

Vistor. Honest question,honest answer. When was the last time you had to kill anything with a gun in a true self-defense scenario?

#20 | Posted by memyselfini at 2018-01-30 03:56 AM

I've never been in a situation where I thought I needed a firearm, or where I thought a firearm would have improved the outcome. I don't hunt and I've only ever shot at paper targets while indoors. I believe self defense and weapons for that purpose are everyone's right. But I doubt I will ever need to personally exercise that right.

#21 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-01-30 07:40 AM

Fortunately, the simple common man has greater wisdom than an intellectual devoid of said wisdom.
The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. Written by James Madison in response to calls from several states for
greater constitutional protection for individual liberties,,
the Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power.
#5 | POSTED BY DANIEL
If we believe this honorable academic, the founding fathers as a single mind wrote the second amendment to protect government and the constitution and not as a right to self defense of the individual. Ridiculous. Sad.
#LeftistBS
#15 | POSTED BY VISITOR_
Why would colonists need weapons for self defense? indians the French or just wild animals perhaps. You city people.
#19 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

You are both too stupid to continue posting here.

The Second Amendment wasn't for individual protection. That doesn't mean the Founding Fathers didn't think people needed guns to protect themselves. It just means they didn't put it in the Constitution.

Shutting Up is a good look for both of you. You should try it sometime.

#22 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-30 11:03 AM

RCADE added a Plonk for a reason I suggest you use it and Fuck you.

#23 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-01-30 11:18 AM

#22 is the problem with threads like this. They just degenerate into invective. Nobody convinces anybody else of anything. And the result is inevitably #23. At this point, gun rights have entered that same rarefied stratosphere of being beyond mature discussion that the abortion issue has inhabited for decades.

#24 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-01-30 11:25 AM

Re #21

In other words you have no clue what you are talking about so you just regurgitate NRA talking points.

Here is an idea. You want to learn self defense? Take a self defense class like karate or better yet Akido. You will gain more self esteem (which you sorely need) and you'll be healthier and happier and you will be way more prepared in situations where self defense may become necessary.

#25 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-30 11:31 AM

It is a collective right.

It was also written with the intent of having no standing army during peacetime.

It was also written when a militia could arm themselves equally against a militant enemy. Now that is laughable.

#26 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-30 11:44 AM

Take a self defense class like karate or better yet Akido. You will gain more self esteem (which you sorely need) and you'll be healthier and happier and you will be way more prepared in situations where self defense may become necessary.

#25 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2018-01-30 11:31 AM | FLAG:

This is the most hysterical thing ever posted.

#27 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-30 11:53 AM

Take a self defense class like karate or better yet Akido. You will gain more self esteem (which you sorely need) and you'll be healthier and happier and you will be way more prepared in situations where self defense may become necessary.
#25 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2018-01-30 11:31 AM | FLAG:

Better yet, just carry a car antenna.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-30 12:33 PM

#28 | POSTED BY JEFFJ
"Better yet, just carry a car antenna."

Better know how to use it.

#29 | Posted by TheTom at 2018-01-30 03:25 PM

RCADE added a Plonk for a reason I suggest you use it and Fuck you.

#23 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Your posts are both a waste of time and degrade discussion of actual facts. Literally every time.

#30 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-30 04:39 PM

#23 Dayummmm someone is crankier than I am. Go to your Dr and BEG for a couple testosterone shots STAT.

#31 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-30 04:43 PM

This is the most hysterical thing ever posted.

#27 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Maybe you should introspect on it a while.

Do you think you buying guns will make your chances of survival better than being healthy and fit with a few good self defense moves so as to able to respond calmly and forcefully and make the right decisions in emergency situations? Your gun does not make decisions. You do.

How much have you spent on your guns and ammo? Thousands of dollars?

How much of a better person did that make you?

#32 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-30 05:30 PM

RCADE added a Plonk for a reason I suggest you use it and Fuck you.

#23 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Why don't YOU plonk him?

Is you plonker as broken as your google seems to be?

#33 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-30 05:41 PM

"Why would colonists need weapons for self defense"

Take a step back.

Why would the inherent right to self defense need to be codified?

Nobody can answer that.

Because self-defense isn't be the reason for the Second Amendment.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-30 06:51 PM

Because self-defense isn't be the reason for the Second Amendment.

#34 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Even if it were, the government could look at your armed militia, declare you "enemy combatants" and then you don't get habeus corpus anyway. Jeff Jeffreys had it right; the only valid reason for owning a gun is that you "***king like guns and want one". The rest are not valid reasons.

#35 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-30 07:02 PM

Which of the other 9, Bill of Rights, amendments are not individual rights?

#36 | Posted by homerj at 2018-01-30 07:08 PM

Amendment 1-freedom of assembly, freedom of the press

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

So, like 3?

#37 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-01-30 07:19 PM

Maybe you should introspect on it a while.

#32 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2018-01-30 05:30 PM | FLAG:

I'm a mixed martial artist. Aikido is the epicenter of fraud in martial arts. If I have to fight somebody bigger or better in a self-defense situation, I'd rather just shoot them. Also, guns are a martial art. You sound very out of date, try the Bullshido site which debunks fraud in martial arts, I am a long time member.

#38 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-30 07:24 PM

Even if it were [and it is], the government could look at your armed militia, declare you "enemy combatants" and then you don't get habeus corpus anyway.

You're only fourteen, twelve and ten years behind. Keep trudging, you'll catch up.

For self defense, see the Vandercoy paper linked above together with Heller, McDonald and numerous circuit court decisions of your choice.

#39 | Posted by et_al at 2018-01-30 07:43 PM

Any personal right to self defense that the Second Amendment might attempt to codify is found in the preparatory clause, which does not a law make.

This stuff about self defense isn't in the Amendment. Because the inherent right of self defense was never a thing that needed to be codified in the first place.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-30 07:47 PM

Read Federalist #46. It's all right there. Madison explains it clearly. The right to bear arms is to protect the populace from tyrannical leaders. Federalist #46–read it, know it, live it...

#41 | Posted by catdog at 2018-01-30 08:31 PM

Aikido is the epicenter of fraud in martial arts.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used Akido as an example as I have not actually studied Akido.

Akido seems to me to be akin to Tai Chi in that it is more of a meditative art and would temper your karate skills with patience and calm.

I have learned karate (Shōrin-ryū) and Tai Chi.

I think the two combined have served me well. They got me thru the Marines pretty much unscathed. My Karate gives me strength and self esteem and Tai Chi gives me calm and alert awareness which keeps me out of trouble in the first place.

If I have to fight somebody bigger or better in a self-defense situation, I'd rather just shoot them.

Too much paperwork. I forgot to mention my Taser. Tasers require a whole lot less paperwork and court time and lawyers fees.

#42 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-30 08:34 PM

The right to bear arms is to protect the populace from tyrannical leaders. Federalist #46–read it, know it, live it...

#41 | Posted by catdog

How is that working out for you?

#43 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-30 08:36 PM

"The right to bear arms is to protect the populace from tyrannical leaders."

Sure, like protect free people from tyrannical leaders whose goverment allows blacks to be taken as slaves!

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-30 08:49 PM

#42 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2018-01-30 08:34 PM | REPLY

There is some legit karate out there, but it suffered badly in the mcdojo era. Tai chi, yoga, all good stuff to improve health. Wrestling is the best base for fighting though.

But a Zimmerman showed us, gun beats ground and pound.

#45 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-30 08:51 PM

Sitz I never wanted a black belt in Pilates till I met you, so thanks for that.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-30 10:25 PM

The ease of access to guns afforded by the current interpretation of the second amendment results in many thousands of gun owner deaths a year. This is worth the occasional loss of innocent life in aggregate.

#47 | Posted by bored at 2018-01-30 11:37 PM

But a Zimmerman showed us, gun beats ground and pound.

#45 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Is that what the Zman showed us? I thought it was you could stalk and kill a black man (boy) and manage to stay out prison but ruin your life.

Silly me.

I really should pay better attention to these kinds of things. You never know when I might need to know how to kill an innocent black man and get off Zimmerman free.

No thanks.

Personally I think I would have just walked away from that fight. I would have let the professionals handle that one. 👮‍♀️

EZ PZ

#48 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-30 11:53 PM

#48 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2018-01-30 11:53 PM

He showed a lot of things. Don't be a vigilante. Gun beats ground and pound. Be the only person that gets to tell their side of the story. Martial art training doesn't mean it will help you in a real fight. Guns with bodies on them can be flipped for profit. Keep your windows rolled up.

#50 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-31 06:43 AM

#47

The rights of THE PEOPLE are explicitly referenced at least five times explicity in the BoR

1. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance."

2. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

3. "The right of THE PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

9. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by THE PEOPLE."

10. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to THE PEOPLE."

If the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms as prescribed in the 2nd amendment doesn't really mean the people are allowed to keep an bear arms, isn't it safe to assume that the BoR really doesn't prescribe any of the other rights either?

#51 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-31 07:14 AM

"As much as I'd like to see dangerous Assault Rifles banned, this is a bridge too far."

A gun is only dangerous or an assault rifle when it's being used for that purpose, either properly or improperly. Many of the previous discussions on "assault rifles" were based on cosmetics. The way the gun looked. But my Christensen Arms CA-10, a .308 semi-automatic has never been used to storm a beachhead, take a hill, or shoot up a school. It has been used quite a bit to hunt antelope, and even more often to shoot tannerite.

#52 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-31 07:19 AM

Barring a re-write of the 2nd amendment, I think the best answer (from a constitutional perspective) may be to take the Swiss approach and issue weapons and ammunition, on the condition that the recipients complete weapons training qualification courses. If the need to compromise ever came up.

#53 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-31 07:22 AM

Sitz I never wanted a black belt in Pilates till I met you, so thanks for that.

#46 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-01-30 10:25 PM | FLAG:

Don't forget your anal kegels

#54 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-31 07:41 AM

Seriously? This guy is supporting a non-government militia who, by nature of the Amendment, must be able to compete with the government military in capabilities in order to protect all citizens? That is what this guy got out of it? It's not even close to something that is capable of happening and I don't know very many people who are willing to say "I'd love to not be scared of the government by giving another group of people enough military power to destroy other countries and ours."

Trump has been continuing the trend of our past Presidents of dumbing down America and now it's gotten so bad even our "experts" have gotten dumbed down.

#55 | Posted by humtake at 2018-01-31 12:10 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

13 Russian Nationals Indicted for Election Interference (316 comments)

Don't Look at the 300 Million Guns, it's the Crazy People (127 comments)

Trump's 'Russia Hoax' Turns Out to Be Very Real (98 comments)

The Trump Administration's Internal War Over Veteran's Health Care (52 comments)

Former Trump Campaign Adviser Close to Deal with Meuller (34 comments)

U.S. National Security Adviser Says Russia Meddling Now Undeniable (27 comments)

President's Personal Attorney Broke NDA, Stormy's Lawyer Says (26 comments)

A 'Mass Shooting Generation' Cries Out for Change (21 comments)