3 ms·

> With arms in their hands, the people will not be likely to permit the overthrow of their institutions by the unscrupulous ambition of a civil magistrate or mi

> With arms in their hands, the people will not be likely to permit the overthrow of their institutions by the unscrupulous ambition of a civil magistrate or military chieftain. The very fact of their being armed will serve as a check to any arbitrary or forcible invasion of their constitutional rights. ~ Henry Flanders 1860 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290303832858627 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645290303832858627 > Some tyrannical governments resort to disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, or participate in military parades. In all countries where despots rule with standing armies, the people are not allowed to keep guns and other warlike weapons. ~ Joseph Bartlett Burleigh 1852 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645292036277547009 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645292036277547009 > This provision is so plainly proper that its propriety need not be argued. It will be sufficient to contrast it with the practice of despotic governments, who, while they maintain large standing armies, at all times subservient to their pleasure, will not allow arms in the hands of the common people. ~ Rev. Daniel Parker 1848 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645292053784559616 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645292053784559616 > Right to Bear Arms - To deny the right of citizens to bear arms is a means employed by despotic rulers to enforce arbitrary government. Without such clause, ambitious men might, by the aid of the regular army, overthrow the liberties of the people. ~ Albert E Maltby 1909 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645293391234863105 https://twitter.com/MorosKostas/status/1645293391234863105 A long thread of many sources: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1645290263299117056 https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1645290263299117056

woodruffw 3y ago
This is a bizarre set of quotes. The fact that the 2A was consistently misunderstood by 19th century lawyers and men of letters isn’t evidence that the framers intended it to undermine their own document. Put another way: someone equally interested in frivolous arguments about the 1A could surely dig up “common sense” opinions from the 19th century about how blasphemy, obscenity, &c. are all reasonably excluded from the franchise. But that doesn’t make them correct.
- agensaequivocum 3y ago
  Show me the 19th century sources saying otherwise. If it is the correct opinion then it shouldn't be hard. You cannot just say that everyone who disagrees with you misunderstands the 2A. If your opinion is correct then surely someone wrote about it prior to the 20th century. The thread I linked has many many more quotes I highly recommend you look at. This is why the Bruen opinion is so great. It uses the historical understanding approach. Which should be applied to the 1A as well.
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    No, I'm not going to play the Gish gallop slap-fight game over the wrong century. Here's an example of the conservative AEI making essentially the same point[1]: that a constitutionally framed democratic sovereign cannot enshrine a right of revolution, even if the individual right of revolution is an inalienable one. This is basic political theory, whether you choose to take a historical approach or not. [1]: https://www.aei.org/articles/is-there-an-american-right-of-revolution/ https://www.aei.org/articles/is-there-an-american-right-of-r...

woodruffw 3y ago

This is a bizarre set of quotes. The fact that the 2A was consistently misunderstood by 19th century lawyers and men of letters isn’t evidence that the framers intended it to undermine their own document. Put another way: someone equally interested in frivolous arguments about the 1A could surely dig up “common sense” opinions from the 19th century about how blasphemy, obscenity, &c. are all reasonably excluded from the franchise. But that doesn’t make them correct.

agensaequivocum 3y ago
Show me the 19th century sources saying otherwise. If it is the correct opinion then it shouldn't be hard. You cannot just say that everyone who disagrees with you misunderstands the 2A. If your opinion is correct then surely someone wrote about it prior to the 20th century. The thread I linked has many many more quotes I highly recommend you look at. This is why the Bruen opinion is so great. It uses the historical understanding approach. Which should be applied to the 1A as well.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  No, I'm not going to play the Gish gallop slap-fight game over the wrong century. Here's an example of the conservative AEI making essentially the same point[1]: that a constitutionally framed democratic sovereign cannot enshrine a right of revolution, even if the individual right of revolution is an inalienable one. This is basic political theory, whether you choose to take a historical approach or not. [1]: https://www.aei.org/articles/is-there-an-american-right-of-revolution/ https://www.aei.org/articles/is-there-an-american-right-of-r...