Richard Henry Lee and the 2A & 3A

What's going on in Washington, D.C.?

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Post Reply

Topic author
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 8:24 am

Richard Henry Lee and the 2A & 3A


Post by NotRPB » Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:38 pm

I quoted him before on this forum.
Was just wondering if anyone remembered who he was and why he mattered.

Argument RE: Citizens with military style weapons

Premise: Citizens need to be as well armed as the Military


Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.
Following the revolution but previous to the adoption of the Constitution, debates over militia proposals occupied a large part of the political scene. A variety of plans were put forth by figures ranging from George Washington to Baron von Steuben.[32] All the proposals called for a general duty of all citizens to be armed, although some proposals (most notably von Steuben's) also emphasized a "select militia" which would be paid for its services and given special training. In this respect, this "select militia" was the successor of the "trained bands" and the predecessor of what is today the "national guard". In the debates over the Constitution, von Steuben's proposals were criticized as undemocratic. In Connecticut on writer complained of a proposal that "this looks too much like Baron von Steuben's militia, by which a standing army was meant and intended." [33] In Pennsylvania, a delegate argued "Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a standing army--or Congress, afraid of a general militia, may say there will be no militia at all. When a select militia is formed, the people in general may be disarmed." [34] Richard Henry Lee, in his widely read pamphlet "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican" worried that the people might be disarmed "by modeling the militia. Should one fifth--or one eighth part of the people capable of bearing arms be made into a select militia, as has been proposed, and those the young and ardent parts of the community, possessed of little or no property, the former will answer all the purposes of an army, while the latter will be defenseless." He proposed that "the Constitution ought to secure a genuine, and guard against a select militia," adding that "to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." [35]

The suspicion of select militia units expressed in these passages is a clear indication that the framers of the Constitution did not seek to guarantee a State right to maintain formed groups similar to the National Guard, but rather to protect the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms. Lee, in particular, sat in the Senate which approved the Bill of Rights. He would hardly have meant the second amendment to apply only to the select militias he so feared and disliked.
Excerpts from:
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Second Session
February 1982

Preface, by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, chairman, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, from the State of Utah

Preface, by Senator Dennis DeConcini, ranking minority member, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, from the State of Arizona

History: Second amendment right to "keep and bear arms"
credit : from

2A was to allow citizens protection from our own government's army if they began attacking citizens as they had just done; 3A was written 45 minutes later with the same mindset (we just fought England's army while we were part of England/fought against our own army ...

Conclusion : for this goal to be achieved: Citizens need to be as well armed as the Military

User avatar

Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4811
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:43 am
Location: TX

Re: Richard Henry Lee and the 2A & 3A


Post by bblhd672 » Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:23 pm

Good stuff, thanks for posting it.
The left lies about everything. Truth is a liberal value, and truth is a conservative value, but it has never been a left-wing value. People on the left say whatever advances their immediate agenda. Power is their moral lodestar; therefore, truth is always subservient to it. - Dennis Prager

Post Reply

Return to “Federal”