Founding Firearms

Josey1

Founding Firearmsby Brad EdmondsA 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.The above is the entire text of the second amendment to the US Constitution. Using today's language, this amendment is difficult to decipher. Removing the first comma helps, making the amendment read as: "Since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.." A militia, of course, is you and your neighbors banding together with rifles and whatever else you have, for the purpose of making your locality such a thorn bush for invaders that nobody wants in except through peaceful exchange.What does "regulated" mean? Today, colloquially, it means something to the effect of "governed by law." Another definition has it as "adjusted for accurate and proper functioning," hence the word "Regulator" on pocket watches worn by railroad conductors 100 years ago. As to which definition the founders meant, the etymology isn't helpful - it's from the Latin for "rod" or "rule." Fortunately, the preponderance of the definitions is in the direction of "adjusted" rather than "governed," and in the late 1780's, the notion of government regulation we all have in mind today hadn't yet been developed. Hence, the most reasonable reading of the second amendment, as worded, would seem to be "Since residents well trained in arms and in cooperation in defense, are necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and use arms will not be infringed." The emphasis is mine because the translation is mine."Will not be infringed" deserves a second look. Though this phrase is simpler to decipher than "regulated" was, its impact is substantial. Notice that "Congress shall make no law" is omitted from this amendment - in the first amendment, by contrast, "Congress shall make no law" meant the states could make laws: Early on, Virginia taxed its residents to support that state's chosen denomination, and some northeastern states required membership in a particular denomination for eligibility for public office. The ninth and tenth amendments more explicitly addressed the states and the people. The second through seventh, by contrast, were absolute in their wording; and since the Constitution was meant to override state government authority, the second through seventh amendments meant these rights wouldn't be infringed at any level of government. Regardless what one thinks of the Constitution overall, this amendment is pure libertarian doctrine. The inalienable right to self-defense was not to be interfered with in any way."The right of the people to keep and bear arms.." A "right" is a thing which it would be absolutely morally wrong to prevent you from doing. You have a natural right to dispose of your own property and person as you wish. As to property, you have a right to own anything you can acquire - houses, cars, guns - through your own labor or through peaceful exchange. And aside from it being illegal already to hurt someone else with your hands, your teeth, a rock, or a stick, etc., it is analogously illegal to hurt someone with a gun. As long as the government is in charge of laws, let's leave it at this: It should be illegal to hurt someone who isn't presenting a direct threat. And it should not be illegal to not hurt someone, whatever you're doing with, carrying on, or dragging behind, your person.The founders had the right idea: No one ought to infringe the natural right of individuals to own, carry, and practice with weapons. In spite of their vision and intent, our rights have been infringed, tremendously. Many effective defensive weapons are illegal; you have to prove all sorts of things about yourself, meaning your privacy is invaded by government, whenever you buy a gun; and you are subjected to severe restrictions on carrying a defensive weapon in cities across the US.My informed lay reading of the second amendment imputes a natural-rights libertarian position to the founders' thinking about gun rights. We long ago lost sight of the founders' intentions, and since the 1930's we have made significant strides in the direction of becoming a disarmed, helpless populace. What we need now is not more support for toothless lobbying organizations that do nothing more than resist the passing of new laws. We need you to get on the phone, write letters, and send emails to your elected officials - local, state, and national. Tell them it's time to obey the second amendment and erase gun laws until the second amendment is the only gun law we have. http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds101.html

Josey1

Founding Firearms
by Brad Edmonds

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.

The above is the entire text of the second amendment to the US Constitution. Using today's language, this amendment is difficult to decipher. Removing the first comma helps, making the amendment read as: "Since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.." A militia, of course, is you and your neighbors banding together with rifles and whatever else you have, for the purpose of making your locality such a thorn bush for invaders that nobody wants in except through peaceful exchange.

What does "regulated" mean? Today, colloquially, it means something to the effect of "governed by law." Another definition has it as "adjusted for accurate and proper functioning," hence the word "Regulator" on pocket watches worn by railroad conductors 100 years ago. As to which definition the founders meant, the etymology isn't helpful - it's from the Latin for "rod" or "rule." Fortunately, the preponderance of the definitions is in the direction of "adjusted" rather than "governed," and in the late 1780's, the notion of government regulation we all have in mind today hadn't yet been developed. Hence, the most reasonable reading of the second amendment, as worded, would seem to be "Since residents well trained in arms and in cooperation in defense, are necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and use arms will not be infringed." The emphasis is mine because the translation is mine.

"Will not be infringed" deserves a second look. Though this phrase is simpler to decipher than "regulated" was, its impact is substantial. Notice that "Congress shall make no law" is omitted from this amendment - in the first amendment, by contrast, "Congress shall make no law" meant the states could make laws: Early on, Virginia taxed its residents to support that state's chosen denomination, and some northeastern states required membership in a particular denomination for eligibility for public office. The ninth and tenth amendments more explicitly addressed the states and the people. The second through seventh, by contrast, were absolute in their wording; and since the Constitution was meant to override state government authority, the second through seventh amendments meant these rights wouldn't be infringed at any level of government. Regardless what one thinks of the Constitution overall, this amendment is pure libertarian doctrine. The inalienable right to self-defense was not to be interfered with in any way.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms.." A "right" is a thing which it would be absolutely morally wrong to prevent you from doing. You have a natural right to dispose of your own property and person as you wish. As to property, you have a right to own anything you can acquire - houses, cars, guns - through your own labor or through peaceful exchange. And aside from it being illegal already to hurt someone else with your hands, your teeth, a rock, or a stick, etc., it is analogously illegal to hurt someone with a gun. As long as the government is in charge of laws, let's leave it at this: It should be illegal to hurt someone who isn't presenting a direct threat. And it should not be illegal to not hurt someone, whatever you're doing with, carrying on, or dragging behind, your person.

The founders had the right idea: No one ought to infringe the natural right of individuals to own, carry, and practice with weapons. In spite of their vision and intent, our rights have been infringed, tremendously. Many effective defensive weapons are illegal; you have to prove all sorts of things about yourself, meaning your privacy is invaded by government, whenever you buy a gun; and you are subjected to severe restrictions on carrying a defensive weapon in cities across the US.

My informed lay reading of the second amendment imputes a natural-rights libertarian position to the founders' thinking about gun rights. We long ago lost sight of the founders' intentions, and since the 1930's we have made significant strides in the direction of becoming a disarmed, helpless populace. What we need now is not more support for toothless lobbying organizations that do nothing more than resist the passing of new laws. We need you to get on the phone, write letters, and send emails to your elected officials - local, state, and national. Tell them it's time to obey the second amendment and erase gun laws until the second amendment is the only gun law we have.

March 12, 2002

Brad Edmonds [send him mail], MS in Industrial Psychology, Doctor of Musical Arts, is a banker in Alabama.

Copyright c 2002 LewRockwell.com http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds101.html



"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878