Up front, let me say that I support stronger gun control — and it’s easy to find founding father quotes that support regulation, and express concern in particular about insufficient training. As with most of my diaries, there is a lot of nuance here, so please read through before going off half-cocked (pun intended).
Some years ago I decided to look to original sources regarding the intent behind the second amendment, in particular whether ensuring the people’s ability to resist the government was among the goals. Unsurprisingly, the founding fathers themselves had many different reasons for supporting it. The least controversial reasons was for hunting. There was also a desire to prevent the establishment of a standing army, which is behind some of the language one sees connecting arms and liberty. Ensuring the ability to defend oneself, and one's family & property was also relatively uncontroversial at the time.
Although not without controversy at the time, there is no question that many of the founding fathers specifically supported people's access to arms as a last line of defense against a government gone bad. This really shouldn’t be surprising, since they had so recently been through an armed revolution against a government they found tyrannical. And this rationale is arguably even stronger today, given that we now have an immense and well-armed standing army. I have long since lost the document where I saved the relevant passages I found then, but here are a few quotes I found today with just a little searching. I found them at thefederalistpapers.org (they are obviously biased against gun control, but a quick search seemed to confirm these quotes as genuine):
“[W]hat country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” —Letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787; The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Federal Edition (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 5
(Another quote often attributed to Thomas Jefferson seems to be spurious: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.")
“Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” —Tenche Cox, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution; Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, p. 2 col. 1
“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 band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” —Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, October 10, 1787; Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, Published during Its Discussion by the People, 1787–1788, Paul Leicester Ford, editor; Brooklyn, 1888. Reprint, New York: De Capo Press, 1968
The idea of the people defending themselves from the government with small arms seems ridiculous today in the face of a standing army, armed (along with many of our police forces) with weaponry that would make it easy for them to overwhelm even a large number of legally well-armed people. This is obviously true to a large degree, but it does not change the intent. And a populace even with only small arms is at the very least going to be more difficult to oppress. (No link, but I read somewhere that in the anxiety building up to Y2K, there was government wargaming on domestic unrest scenarios, and they determined that they would not be able to maintain control.)
In my earlier research, I also learned of an important distinction between arms and ordnance (unfortunately, I can't seem to find good references for this now). "Arms" referred to things like pistols, muskets, rifles, and shotguns. "Ordnance" meant things like explosives and cannon. The second amendment of course specifies arms and not ordnance, so there is no slippery slope even under a broad interpretation of the second amendment, no implication that the general public should be able to have fighter jets or nuclear bombs. As we have developed more and more powerful handheld weapons we have had to decide where to draw the line, and currently it we generally allow semi-automatic weapons, but not automatics. Nothing the founding fathers wrote is going to offer perfect guidance on this, it's really up to us.
Given the reduced military power — relative to the government — that the people have today compared two-plus centuries ago, I can imagine us explicitly giving up the second amendment’s role in government accountability, but I would hesitate to do this, and would support it only if we used it as a bargaining chip to gain a whole host of other, arguably more relevant to today, shifts in power toward the people. I want a real democracy! Just a few examples:
-
Demilitarize the police and institute strong civilian oversight.
- Greatly increase government transparency (including much stronger immunity for whistle-blowers).
- Require judges to pro-actively educate juries of their power to set aside laws which they find unjust in general, or in their particular case.
- Roll back many of the powers granted to corporations over the years, and base whatever powers we do grant them on some basis other than corporate personhood (Citizens United is just the latest step empowering corporations beyond all reason).
- My favorite would be greatly expanded experimentation with direct, demographically representative citizen involvement in developing and setting government policy (current examples of such experimentation include participatory budgeting and citizen initiative review) — with particular attention to practices that yield wisdom from the collective rather than mob rule.
I write all of this as a strong believer in, and practitioner of, nonviolence to advance the people's causes and defend against oppression. I am not alone among advocates of nonviolence in supporting gun rights as a tangible and psychological source of the people’s power, and I support others' right to take them up to defend against oppressive government, even if I prefer to fight a different way, one which I believe is even more effective. From p. 446 of Gandhi, an Autobiography:
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."