Pragmatic, cultural and political etiologies of the Founders cognition on the 2nd Amendment

Part I

Thread Discussion Topic:
Pragmatic, cultural and political etiologies of the Founders cognition on the 2nd Amendment and their allegorical germanity to present day originalist argument based on the right to bear arms as a check against tyranny in all its forms: tyrannical government excess, tyranny of the/a minority and tyranny of the majority.

Discussion Rubric (The OP is broken across multiple posts due to the 5000 character limitation):

Fairly often I see in the popular press, on Internet blogs, and forums gun rights advocates' vestigial originalist arguments that support of opposing various gun control measures on the grounds of something or other having to do with what the Founders intended. Sometimes the argument (more often a bald assertion, but I'm not going to dwell on that inadequacy at this point) the defense against tyranny. On other occasions, it's the individual rights assertion.

To be sure, there's some measure of merit to both those arguments; however, on no occasion have I come by arguments that representationally faithfully consider both the Anglo-American historical contexts -- social/cultural, political, governmental, economic and, to a small extent, diplomatic -- inherent to the citizenry's access to firearms and the differences between those contexts and those today extant. It's repeatedly "this happened" and "that happened."

Well, yes, those events happened, but in what context and is that context comparable in all or most material respects to today's? This essay presents those contexts as they apply to militias as a check against tyranny. It is not structured to be an argument, per se, but rather as a rubric.

• Foundation of the notion a citizen army: (Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books. )
  William Blackstone attributed the development to Alfred the Great, asserting: "It seems universally agreed by all historians, that King Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom, and by his prudent discipline made all the subjects of his dominion soldiers ...." More recent historical research suggests that the early militia, or Fyrd, can now be traced at least to A.D. 690; indeed, it is likely that "the obligation of Englishmen to serve in the Fyrd of people's army is older than our oldest records." By Medieval law, "every land holder was obligated to keep armour and weapons according to his rank and possessions; these he might neither sell, lend nor pledge, nor even alienate from his heirs." This concept differed radically from the Continental feudal system, which revolved around mounted, armed and armoured combatants and limited the right of armament; thus the duty of fighting in defense fell to a relatively small and wealthy class.
  
  The early feudal system obviated, then, all impersonal need for most citizens -- anyone not a member of the peerage -- to possess sophisticated weapons of the day. The feudal system was, however, highly decentralized, and it suffered from the consequences thereof -- raids, frequent changes in land control/ownership, profitability constriction, etc. On the other hand, not being a peer had its advantages, not the least of which being that when a phalanx of mounted soldiers thundered in one's direction, getting out of their way was generally enough to ensure one's survival for one's lord was their target. Moreover, as a commoner, though life wasn't exactly great, it wasn't likely to get materially worse or better regardless of who was the lord to whom one was beholden, and the conquering lord was, if he won the battle, equally in need of one's labors as was one's current lord of manor. It was an agrarian economy, and commoners were the folks who knew the tricks of the trade to working the land, making arms and armor, building structures, where to find game, etc.

[Continued due to character limit]

Part II

• A couple hundred years after The Fall, however, things began to change. Two hundred or so years later, the changes become permanent. (Why'd it take "so long?" Mainly, literacy was low and communications were slow. "Figuring things out," politics, personality and prudence, of course, played a role too.)
  • • Note: I recommend reading this -- The Structure of Blackstone's Commentaries -- which is effectively annotations to Commentaries, before or concurrently with reading Commentaries; doing so makes Commentaries somewhat more accessible. (Yes, I know, many folks aren't accustomed to reading two documents in order to fully grasp the content of one of the two. Be that as it may, read the methodological approach to beginning on page 219 first and then return to the beginning if you are going to read "Structure.") One will find this section's content in Commentaries; however, I've attempted to provide other source that strike me as better suited to casual readers of history and political science/political philosophy, but don't let that dissuade you from reading Blackstone for I know of no better compendium that describes the legal and social culture of post-Roman England.
  • King Alfred (871-899) declares all citizens the king's soldiers, thus solidifying the notion of citizens being obliged to defend their country, and concomitant with this obligation was the burden to produce one's own arms.
  • Norman Conquest imports Continental feudalism with material revisions, effected by William the Conqueror, to mitigate a key flaw of feudalism whereby lords/vassals and knights, members of the peerage, owed the duty of military service not to the nation, polity/citizenry, national sovereign or government, but immediately and only to the individual who had granted them land in exchange for their service, thus homage. It was furthermore possible for one to owe service to multiple lords, two or more of whom were at odds with one another. William's solution was to have all swear fealty to him.
    • Consideration of the structure of feudal homage established on the Continent the political tension that, in turn, effects checks and balances against the excesses of any given lord. Lord A couldn't very well wage too disruptive a war with Lord B if material quantities of both lords' vassals were dually beholden, to say nothing of there possibly being yet another lord to whom their vassals were also trothed. The result was thus similar to the domestic political infighting (interparty and intraparty) we observe today, albeit generally with less bloody outcomes. William's solution solved a variety of problems caused by feudalism's multiplicity of loyalties, but it expanded the opportunity for later leaders to "get too big for their britches" and become tyrants.
      
      Why'd William's vassals swear fealty to him? Well, because there's absolutely no reason to object to a dictator with whom one sees eye to eye. The man led his people in the conquest of an entire country, and as a Catholic, created a huge growth opportunity for Christianity. There was land aplenty, and that was just fine with everyone in the agrarian economy that resulted.

[Continued due to character limit]

Part III

• • Henry II added structure to the arms production requirement, defining the nature and extent of arms one was required to produce on one's own behalf. (Original text, if you prefer, is here: Assize of Arms (Ass Arms)
  • Edward I reaffirmed earlier assizes and added the requirement that "anyone else who can afford them shall keep bows and arrows ."
  • Development of citizen army concept under the Tudors:
    By the end of the Tudor period the notion of a citizen army, a militia, had become accepted generally. Moreover, universal armament attenuated monarchical excess and fostered individual liberties because the populace had in reserve a check which soon brought the fiercest and proudest King to reason: the check of physical force wrought by weight of numbers.
    • Henry VII
      • Fathers must purchase longbows for sons between seven and fourteen years of age and teach them to shoot and able bodied citizens between the age of fourteen and forty years was required to own and be able to use (presumably with some measure of adeptness) a longbow . (See also: https://tinyurl.com/yayz2wt7 )
    • Elizabeth I
      • Ordered periodic musters so that she might know the "numbers, qualities, abilities and sufficiency of all her subjects in that county .. . .from the age of sixteen years upward, that may be found able to bear armour or to use weapons on horseback or on foot. " (See also Sources, at 396 )
      • Citizen armies were at this point understood as "militias." (Sources, at 396 )

[Continued due to character limit]

Part IV

• • The Stuart period -- In this period and amid its tumult congealed the English colonists' mindset re: political theory and pragmatic exigencies underpinning the role of a citizen militia. Civil war occurred between Parliament and the crown, a King was executed, another King fled to France, a military dictatorship ruled, supremacy of the English Parliament (the legislature) over the crown was established, and Parliament installed a new King and Queen and forced them to accede to a Declaration of Rights . Through all those events of the period, various factions sought to control the militia and intermittently to disarm opposing factions.
    • James I of England and Ireland (James IV of Scotland) -- Proclaimed that individuals elected to Parliament could be seated only if certified by the chancery; only proper men could be certified. James furthermore asserted God as the source of a King's, his, authority and that Parliament sat at the king's pleasure.
      • Parliament saw the matter quite differently. Lord Coke argued that the kings powers were limited to what Parliament accorded him by way of common law (precedent), statute, and custom.
    • Charles I (son of James I) -- Started to raise an army of his own by issuing writs or assessments (taxes) on each individual l. In addition, his issued ecclesiastical canons in which he advised subjects that bearing arms against the King would result in damnation. One needn't think hard to fathom how well that went over.
      • Scotland's people openly rebelled. (For an intriguing discussion of the role of the media during this period, see Covenanter Propaganda and Conceptualizations of the Public during the Bishops Wars, 1638-1640 )
      • Charles I was forced to call Parliament to session in 1640 for purposes of raising additional taxes because of the rebellion. The new Parliament, the Long Parliament, availed itself to assert its influence to the detriment of the monarchy. Parliament secured for itself the power of dissolving and eliminating the King's prerogative courts. Additionally, Parliament demanded Lord Strafford , the King's leading minister, be removed from his post because Strafford had raised a standing army in Ireland. The King complied; Stratford was executed; and Ireland revolted.
    • Giddy with success in outmaneuvering the King, the Long Parliament moved to seize control of the militia. The King balked and refused to accede to this demand. Parliament moved forward and appointed its own officers to take charge of the militia by passing the bill the King had refused to sign as an Ordinance of Parliament in 1642. (Sources, at 477 -478 ) Parliament called out the militia and warned that militia units mustered under authority other than that of Parliament would be punished. The King did the same, and civil war ensued. (Sources, at 488 )
      
      The actual ability of Parliament or the King to muster the militia is unclear . Charles attempted to disarm many militia units by confiscating public magazines and seizing the weapons of residents. In addition, Charles sought to arm Catholics he had previously disarmed to secure their assistance. These acts could be considered as evidence that Parliament was more successful at securing the support of local militias than was Charles I. In any event, Parliament's forces prevailed, executing Charles I in 1649 and the Kingship and the House of Lords were abolished. Parliament declared England a free state, which, of course, it was not.

[Continued due to character limit]

Part V

The militia mustered in 1642 became standing armies by 1649, and eventually the citizen-soldiers in it no longer served when needed. Many were unwilling to follow the dictates of Parliament; thus Parliament created its own army, known as the "New Model Army " in 1645. True to its roots, a large portion of the army perceived itself a militia rather than the "realm's soldiers," as it were; thus, combined with soldiers' wages being in arrears and Parliament's favoring a national Presbyterian church , their loyalties sat with the people, not Parliament.

Army leaders such as Oliver Cromwell advocated of religious freedom, taking the position that a polity's freedom of worship was a right over which Parliament had no control. Thus, part of the army, initially raised and paid by Parliament, unilaterally saw itself as an independent political force empowered to act in the name of "the people." The army, under Cromwell's control, proposed an "Agreement of the People ," which denied Parliament's power over religion, impressing men into the army or navy, or requiring accused persons to incriminate themselves. Parliament, unsurprisingly, rejected the "Agreement."

• Soldiers, via "Solemn Engagement, " pledged to remain together until their demands for back pay and political changes were met and defined when Parliament met. Parliament attempted to disband the army. The army declined and eventually took over the government, installing the Rump Parliament .
• When a subsequent Parliament attempted to disband the army, it was dissolved. Ultimately, another Parliament bestowed on Cromwell the role of Lord Protector and attempted to reduce the army's size and revitalize the militia. Cromwell, however, dissolved Parliament and created a military government. Segments of the army, paid regularly by the government, were assigned to each of eleven military districts. Cromwell's authorized his forces to disarm all Catholics, opponents of the government, and anyone else judged dangerous. When Cromwell died in 1659, the Rump Parliament met again and enacted laws that empowered government officials to confiscate arms from landowners to protect the Commonwealth, thereafter Parliament authorized seizing arms from Catholics, anyone who had borne arms against Parliament, or anyone else judged dangerous to the State.

[Continued due to character limit]

Part VI


The Restoration (1660) -- Stuarts regain the throne.

• Parliament reseats purged members, reestablishes the monarchy by crowning Charles II, son of Charles I, who had no army. Because of the policy of universal armament and the Civil War, the English people were heavily armed. Cromwell's army of 60,000 was mingled with the rest of the population. Consequently, Charles II decided to develop his own army and to disarm the population. Parliament assisted by enacting the Militia Act of 1661 which vested control over the militia in the King.
• In 1662, the more select militia was authorized to seize arms of anyone judged dangerous to the Kingdom. In addition, gunsmiths were ordered to report weekly on the number of guns made and sold; importation of firearms was banned .
• Game Act passed -- It limited the right to hunt to those persons who earned over £100 annual income from the land and made possession of a firearm by other than those qualified to hunt illegal and provided for confiscation of those arms. (Average annual income of the time was £13 . Roughly, then, one had to have more than 7.6 times the average annual income to qualify to possess a firearm.)
• James II, Charles brother, succeeds to the throne. He's Catholic, which gives the Duke of Monmouth vapors enough to declare himself the Savior of Anglicanism and foment rebellion on religious grounds. James crushed the rebellion, doubled his standing army to 30,000 men, used his kingly discretionary power to appoint Catholic officers, whom he quarters in private homes in violation of Parliamentary enactments, to his army.
  
  The populace thus became suspicious of whether James might plan to impose his religion on England. Cottoning to yet another "guilt by association" ad hominem lines of fallacious reasoning, the populace disregards that just a few generations before Englishmen were Catholic, and likely would still have been but for an annulment denied. Similarly, it doesn't strike them that Anglicanism isn't particularly different from Roman Catholicism. The general public view the Pope as a king and are oblivious to the realities of Papal and global/European politics of the day. No surprise that they were, of course, forsome 70% of the populace was illiterate . So what did they think? Why did they think it? What were the public's sources of information? For the answers see: Covenanter Propaganda and Conceptualizations of the Public during the Bishops Wars, 1638-1640 ?

[Continued due to character limit]

Part VII

• William and Mary became sovereigns in 1689, and Parliament curtailed their powers via theDeclaration of Rights . They were required to accord to their subjects the rights in the Declaration and to rule as per Parliament's statutes. The Declaration recited James I's excesses, including raising/keeping a standing army without Parliament's consent, quartering troops in private homes, and disarming Protestant subjects. It also set forth the positive right of Protestant subjects to have arms for their defense, suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.
  
  The Declaration did not create a new right; however, for the English had been able to possess individual arms for centuries and at times were required to keep them. Even so, the debates attending the Declaration make clear that Parliament thought the right should be recognized as a right of individuals. The Whigs in the Convention Parliament were the most outspoken in favor of the right to possess arms to resist tyranny.
• Parliament's Whigs were aggrieved that the King and a prior Parliament had disarmed his critics. An early draft of the grievance portion of the Declaration stated that "the Acts concerning the militia are grievous to the subjects ," a reference to those portions of the civil war era militia acts that permitted the militia to disarm those suspected of disloyalty.
  
  To address this grievance, the draft stating the positive right first provided: "it is necessary for the Publick Safety, that the Subjects which are Protestants, should provide and keep Arms for their common Defence. And that the Arms which have been seized, and taken from them, be restored ."
  
  This version stated a collective purpose for the right, public safety, and common defense. A later version omitted the reference to the public safety but retained the collective purpose language: common defense. It altered the "should keep" language to "may keep." This version read, "That the Subjects, which are Protestants, may provide and keep Arms, for their common Defence. " There was a some more argy-bargy with the House of Lords -- remember it'd been disbanded when the monarchy was -- and the final version of the Declaration read, "[T]hat the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." (Sources , at 601)

​[Continued due to character limit]

Part VIII (final post of the OP series)

Several other points are important regarding this article of the declaration.During the civil war era and thereafter, both Parliament and the monarchy had proclaimed themselves, to the exclusion of the other, as the protector of the subjects' wellbeing. To facilitate the collective rights of the subjects, each had attempted to disarm the others' supporters. Thus, the collective organization intended to protect all subjects' liberty, the militia itself rather than the government's standing army, became an instrument of governmental tyranny. The collective rights of all subjects could not be guaranteed if the government had the power to vest enforcement in one collective organization because the government controlled the organization. Accordingly, the government's power to appoint the officers of the militia and select its membership meant that the militia could become an instrument of the government, not the people. Thus, the people's collective rights were enforceable only if the power of enforcement, force of arms, was universally dispersed.

• The language that Protestant subjects may have arms "as allowed by law " was not construed as a limitation on possession, but rather a limitation on use. Parliament enacted a new game/ hunting act that deleted firearms from the list of hunting equipment that could not be possessed except by the wealthy. Arms could be confiscated if used to poach game, but possession of arms was protected as a matter of right. However, the phrase "as allowed by law" highlights that Parliament, like Congress, could, and can even today, abrogate rights it previously granted. We know the point of that phrase pertains to the legislature because with or without it, Parliament's Declaration of Rights nonetheless protected individual right to own firearms for individual purposes -- hunting -- from abuse by the monarchy.
• The English Declaration of Rights states "that the subjects which are Protestants may have arms." However, contemporaneous legislation in 1689 made clear that while Catholics were not permitted to stockpile weapons, they were allowed to possess arms for defense of their house or person.
• Although the Declaration speaks solely in terms of an individual right to bear arms, a review of eighteenth-century literature indicates that the intended purpose was to provide both an individual and a collective right with the collective right being the more important. A true collective right, however, could only be protected by guaranteeing the individual right.

End of OP

Xelor said:

Part VIII (final post of the OP series)

Several other points are important regarding this article of the declaration.During the civil war era and thereafter, both Parliament and the monarchy had proclaimed themselves, to the exclusion of the other, as the protector of the subjects' wellbeing. To facilitate the collective rights of the subjects, each had attempted to disarm the others' supporters. Thus, the collective organization intended to protect all subjects' liberty, the militia itself rather than the government's standing army, became an instrument of governmental tyranny. The collective rights of all subjects could not be guaranteed if the government had the power to vest enforcement in one collective organization because the government controlled the organization. Accordingly, the government's power to appoint the officers of the militia and select its membership meant that the militia could become an instrument of the government, not the people. Thus, the people's collective rights were enforceable only if the power of enforcement, force of arms, was universally dispersed.

• The language that Protestant subjects may have arms "as allowed by law " was not construed as a limitation on possession, but rather a limitation on use. Parliament enacted a new game/ hunting act that deleted firearms from the list of hunting equipment that could not be possessed except by the wealthy. Arms could be confiscated if used to poach game, but possession of arms was protected as a matter of right. However, the phrase "as allowed by law" highlights that Parliament, like Congress, could, and can even today, abrogate rights it previously granted. We know the point of that phrase pertains to the legislature because with or without it, Parliament's Declaration of Rights nonetheless protected individual right to own firearms for individual purposes -- hunting -- from abuse by the monarchy.
• The English Declaration of Rights states "that the subjects which are Protestants may have arms." However, contemporaneous legislation in 1689 made clear that while Catholics were not permitted to stockpile weapons, they were allowed to possess arms for defense of their house or person.
• Although the Declaration speaks solely in terms of an individual right to bear arms, a review of eighteenth-century literature indicates that the intended purpose was to provide both an individual and a collective right with the collective right being the more important. A true collective right, however, could only be protected by guaranteeing the individual right.

End of OP

Click to expand...

Sounds like a dissertation. Not sure where you are going with this though

vegas giants said:

Sounds like a dissertation. Not sure where you are going with this though

Click to expand...

Oh, it's not at all a dissertation, but, sure, the writing style is somewhat similar to that found in dissertations.

The OP is just my notes from various texts I read after a gun rights advocate with whom I found myself chatting at a social event presented an originalist argument re: gun control/rights. At the time, I couldn't join the conversation because, at the time, I really didn't recall well enough the details of English legal and political history and, but quite a few remarks I heard the guy make didn't at all jibe with my understanding of English and Colonial economic history. I resolved not to remain in my prior state of ignorance about the history of gun rights/control and how they have been given and taken in the centuries that featured prominently in the Founders' minds.

I decided to share my reading notes here and use them as a rubric for discussing the legitimacy of the tyranny element of the originalist gun rights argument.

Xelor said:

Oh, it's not at all a dissertation, but, sure, the writing style is somewhat similar to that found in dissertations.

The OP is just my notes from various texts I read after a gun rights advocate with whom I found myself chatting at a social event presented an originalist argument re: gun control/rights. At the time, I couldn't join the conversation because, at the time, I really didn't recall well enough the details of English legal and political history and, but quite a few remarks I heard the guy make didn't at all jibe with my understanding of English and Colonial economic history. I resolved not to remain in my prior state of ignorance about the history of gun rights/control and how they have been given and taken in the centuries that featured prominently in the Founders' minds.

I decided to share my reading notes here and use them as a rubric for discussing the legitimacy of the tyranny element of the originalist gun rights argument.

Click to expand...

I think it is impressive. Dissertation was a compliment not insult.

vegas giants said:

I think it is impressive. Dissertation was a compliment not insult.

Click to expand...

I didn't take it as compliment or insult; I just thought it was an observational comment. My "it's not at all" remark is a reflection of my knowing the what I wrote for the OP series of posts is more akin to a book report than to a dissertation. I was trying not to take credit I know those posts don't deserve.


But now that you've said so, thank you. I appreciate the kind sentiment.

vegas giants said:

Sounds like a dissertation. Not sure where you are going with this though

Click to expand...

The OP (posts 1-8) is presented as a rubric for discussing the thread topic. At the start of the OP, I think I quite precisely defined the thread topic. As a reminder, the topic is:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". They "whys" are pretty much irrelevant. There's nothing in The Constitution that requires a justification in order to practice one's civil rights.

apdst said:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". They "whys" are pretty much irrelevant. There's nothing in The Constitution that requires a justification in order to practice one's civil rights.

Click to expand...

it wasn't until FDR felt a need for the federal government to pander to the slow witted and expand the power of the federal government well beyond anything the founders intended, did we start seeing a cottage industry of conjurers who try to rearrange the obvious meaning of the second amendment. They do this to try to make the second amendment irrelevant and nothing more than a suggestion to the legislature. Its dishonest and we all know it-whether some admit it or not.

apdst said:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". They "whys" are pretty much irrelevant. There's nothing in The Constitution that requires a justification in order to practice one's civil rights.

Click to expand...

Be that as it may, it isn't the topic of this thread.

TurtleDude said:

it wasn't until FDR felt a need for the federal government to pander to the slow witted and expand the power of the federal government well beyond anything the founders intended, did we start seeing a cottage industry of conjurers who try to rearrange the obvious meaning of the second amendment. They do this to try to make the second amendment irrelevant and nothing more than a suggestion to the legislature. Its dishonest and we all know it-whether some admit it or not.

Click to expand...

Be that as it may, FDR had nothing to do with the pragmatic, cultural and political etiologies of the Founders cognition on the 2nd Amendment.

Xelor said:

Be that as it may, it isn't the topic of this thread.

Click to expand...

If you don't want to discuss the 2nd Amendment, don't start threads about the 2nd Amendment.

apdst said:

If you don't want to discuss the 2nd Amendment, don't start threads about the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

I didn't start a thread on the 2nd Amendment. I started a thread on the "pragmatic, cultural and political etiologies of the Founders cognition on the 2nd Amendment," not the 2nd Amendment itself. I even provided in the OP a very precise statement of the thread topic.

Xelor said:

I didn't start a thread on the 2nd Amendment. I started a thread on the "pragmatic, cultural and political etiologies of the Founders cognition on the 2nd Amendment," not the 2nd Amendment itself. I even provided in the OP a very precise statement of the thread topic.

From the OP:​

Thread Discussion Topic:
Pragmatic, cultural and political etiologies of the Founders cognition on the 2nd Amendment and their allegorical germanity to present day originalist argument based on the right to bear arms as a check against tyranny in all its forms: tyrannical government excess, tyranny of the/a minority and tyranny of the majority.
​

Click to expand...

Yeah, the 2nd Amendment.

apdst said:

If you don't want to discuss the 2nd Amendment, don't start threads about the 2nd Amendment.

Xelor said:

I didn't start a thread on the 2nd Amendment. I started a thread on the "pragmatic, cultural and political etiologies of the Founders cognition on the 2nd Amendment," not the 2nd Amendment itself. I even provided in the OP a very precise statement of the thread topic.

From the OP:​

Thread Discussion Topic:
Pragmatic, cultural and political etiologies of the Founders cognition on the 2nd Amendment and their allegorical germanity to present day originalist argument based on the right to bear arms as a check against tyranny in all its forms: tyrannical government excess, tyranny of the/a minority and tyranny of the majority.
​

apdst said:

Yeah, the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Some folks just haven't skills warranting my indulging in conversation with them. I bear such folks no malice, but I too have no patience for them. You are one of those people. Ciao.

Xelor said:

Some folks just haven't skills warranting my indulging in conversation with them. I bear such folks no malice, but I too have no patience for them. You are one of those people. Ciao.

Click to expand...

I directly addressed the thread topic. Sorry if you don't like the response you got.

So you are trying to use nonsense from England to make it apply to our 2nd amendment,what our founders intentions were based on what happened in England and claim its somehow obsolete? What utter rubbish.

Xelor said:

Be that as it may, FDR had nothing to do with the pragmatic, cultural and political etiologies of the Founders cognition on the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

FDR's fraud completely violated the second and tenth amendment as well as the commerce clause

TurtleDude said:

FDR's fraud completely violated the second and tenth amendment as well as the commerce clause

Click to expand...

Be that as it may, it has nothing to do with the pragmatic, cultural and political etiologies of the Founders' cognition on the 2nd Amendment.