Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 9 years ago

Do you agree with the Founding Fathers that the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right?


Whoever said that the founding fathers didn't think that all citizens should have guns is living in their own little world.

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" - (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"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, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

" disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of 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 bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

10 Answers

  • 9 years ago
    Best Answer

    The first step toward tyranny is to completely disarm the citizenry. Then the government can impose whatever rules and laws it likes as there is no longer any threat from the very people who gave them that power.

    The 2nd amendment is not about an armed militia or an army, it is meant to protect the people from the government.

    "While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny."

    - Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789

    Source(s): An American
  • 9 years ago

    Yes. Not only do writings at the time, contemporary laws, and the exact language of the Second Amendment betray the intention, but what's more the Supreme Court agrees that the individual right to possess a firearm is in no way connected to his willingness or ability to serve in a militia.

    Source(s): DC v Heller; McDonald v Chicago
  • Mike W
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    The Bill of Rights was included in the Constitution to protect the rights of the individuals, and lists what the government can't do.

  • tom
    Lv 6
    9 years ago

    The question of whether it is individual or not is not important, it is what is individual that is important.

    People come out with "i have the right to keep and bear arms" yet they have no idea what that means.

    The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons, the right is individual, but the 2A is all about the US govt. So the US govt may not prevent individuals, before due process, from being able to keep arms.

    This is different because they can ban certain arms, as long as individuals can keep arms then there is no problem. It's all about the militia, if the militia has its ready supply of weapons then there is no problem.

    The right to bear arms is where it gets mixed up. The right is the right to be in the militia. The US govt may not prevent individuals, before due process, from being in the militia.

    Many people claim that it is about carrying arms, but that is based on nothing more than people seeing the term "bear" and saying, oww, that means carry sometimes, so it must mean carry. Which is like saying stool always means a wooden object, it does not.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 9 years ago

    I know right, anybody who thinks that the Bill of Rights should be celebrated as a statute of limitation and not as one of freedoms needs to get their priorities set right

  • 9 years ago

    Everything in our Constitution is about individual rights, including the Second Amendment.

  • 9 years ago

    "Do you agree with the Founding Fathers that the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right?"


    "Whoever thinks that the Framers would have approved of the daily gun carnage that we do in their names is living in an alternate universe ."

    -Of course they did not approve of murder. We are talking about the right to bear arms, not to murder without cause.

  • Vanity
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    Answer to main question-------Self defense is practiced when one masters martial arts. Your hands are in turn registered lethal weapons and are to be used only for self with protecting your home or property and then guns were used for hunting food......The Constitution....much like the Bible has a way of interpreting what one wants it to believe but if you get right down to to be used as self defense....not war, and not given easy access to the Hatfield's and McCoys.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Whoever thinks that the Framers would have approved of the daily gun carnage that we do in their names is living in an alternate universe .

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    No, I think some radicals on the right have wilfully misinterpreted the Second Amendment.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.