Posts
In my last blog post, No 1776 without 1688, I discussed how many of the rights we take as being uniquely American were actually the rights that many Englishmen enjoyed in the 17th century. I do this for more than just amusement purposes. By understanding the proper historical perspective of the founding of this nation, we get clarity into what motivated the Founding Fathers. We get an insight into why they took the actions they did. Lastly, we get an intimate understanding of the principles conveyed in the founding documents of this nation.
This is especially true for the Bill of Rights and its most controversial amendments, the right to bear arms. There are two current interpretations of this amendment. One interpretation believes that the founding fathers intended the right to bear arms to be limited to members of "a well regulated militia." The other interpretation believes that the founding fathers meant for it to be a check and balance on the authority of government. Therefore, it is an individual right outside of the governmental system or establishment.
A cursory reading of the amendment lends validity to both of these interpretations. But when we trace the right to bear arms back to its historical origins we find that only one interpretation is substantiated.
As I explain in my book, Liberty Inherited, the right to bear arms first appeared in writing in the Declaration of Rights of 1689. Like the Bill of Rights, the Declarations of Rights was the product of a revolution and the events leading up to it.
By the time of James II ordination in 1685, the limits on an English monarch's power had long been established. But James did not like this and wanted to restructure the English government on the French and Spanish models. In both of these countries, the king had absolute power over the nation and his subjects. James knew this would require him to impose his will on the liberty loving and fiercely independent English people.
One of the obstacles to James' goals was that the English people were just as well armed as any loyal force he could assemble. He could not entirely eliminate the ownership of weapons since many at that time relied on them for their livelihood. Therefore, he used his royal prerogative to restrict the weapons that an Englishman could own to those that could only be used for hunting and sporting purposes. This meant that the average person would only be allowed to own small caliber muskets for small game and shotguns for bird hunting. This left the populace at a great disadvantage to royal forces and at the mercy of the King.
After waking up to the threat that James II posed to their liberty the English people overthrew him in what was to be known as The Glorious Revolution. Like the Americans 100 years later, they realized that they would need a document that would assert “their ancient rights and liberties.” That document was the Declaration of Rights and in its list of rights number seven states:
7. That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law
Please note that the intended purpose of arms was for ‘defense.’ Considering the motivating factors behind the document it is clear that the drafters of the Declaration of Rights saw an armed populace as a defense against government, in this case a monarchy, abuses of power.
It is not inconceivable that the drafters of the Bill of Rights did not intend the 2nd amendment to, likewise, be a check on the power and authority of government. To do otherwise, is to believe that such learned men such as George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin were utterly unaware of the document that guaranteed their rights as Englishmen.
