PDA

View Full Version : Founding Fathers and Concealment


Harrison_Bergeron
07-23-2009, 9:49 PM
I have read a quote attributed to one of the founding father posted on CGN that said something to the effect that concealing weapons is shady. Does anyone know what quote I am talking about, or who it may be attributed to?

I know it's a pretty vague question, but I can't remember anything about the quote, just that someone playing devil's advocate posted it.

Thanks.

Flopper
07-24-2009, 12:30 AM
I doubt the poster in the other thread was using the supposed quote in order to play devil's advocate, but if he was, he was using the quote out of context.

Concealing weapons in that era was frowned upon and usually illegal. The reason being that open carry was the traditional method of bearing arms for personal protection, and that someone concealing an arm was usually hiding it in order to commit a crime.

Heller reaffirmed the right to bear arms. It doesn't matter if the era of the founding discouraged concealed carry; it still allowed carry under the norms of that time period. With some exceptions, concealed carry has become the most acceptable method of bearing arms in today's society.

Maestro Pistolero
07-24-2009, 2:08 AM
To some extent I think it was archaic tradition. The British also marched their armies in a straight line right into musket fire, not even attempting to take cover, and dueling was an 'honorable' way to settle an argument over an insult.
Some things really are better left in the past.

forgiven
07-24-2009, 3:31 AM
I don't know, maybe dueling would be fun. That is, for the winner.

Barbarossa
07-24-2009, 7:29 AM
"I demand satisfaction Sir!"

Decoligny
07-24-2009, 7:42 AM
I think dueling should be brought back. Can you imagine how much more civilized our society would be if you knew you could be challenged to a duel to the death over an insult? Road rage? Thing of the past.

Thankfully dueling banjos are still legal though. Love that foggy mountain breakdown.

ROW FASTER, I hear banjo music!!!

http://www.moviemaker.com/magazine/issues/55/images/mid.Deliverance.jpg

Roadrunner
07-24-2009, 7:46 AM
To some extent I think it was archaic tradition. The British also marched their armies in a straight line right into musket fire, not even attempting to take cover, and dueling was an 'honorable' way to settle an argument over an insult.
Some things really are better left in the past.

And liberals would suggest that carrying arms of any sort should also be left to the past. I guess it all depends on how one views the past. The problem with current laws is that ANY clothing that covers your firearm is considered concealed carry, so a person who wears his firearm normally open carry would be in violation with no CCW should that same person put on a jacket on a cold night. Is that what the founding fathers viewed as "concealed"? There is a significant amount of common sense lacking in gun laws that really needs to be dealt with, and I think the definition of concealed carry is one of them. Quite frankly, I think it's ludicrous to distinguish one form of carry from another.

As a final note, times do indeed change and the prejudices of the past make way for the contemporary customs of today. For example, would you prefer to see a woman in a bathing dress,

http://en.wikivisual.com/images/7/75/Bathing_suit_1858.png

or a bikini?

http://www.biquini-brasil.com/assets/big/Bikini-9483-big.jpg

Not wanting to be sexist, would a woman prefer the bathing dress to a bikini? I think not. Just the same the prejudices about concealed carry in the past are in fact what is archaic and need to be abolished so that a person may exercise the RKBA as they see fit.

1JimMarch
07-24-2009, 10:11 AM
>>Concealing weapons in that era was frowned upon and usually illegal.<<

I doubt the former and the latter factoid about "illegal" is incorrect.

The first laws against concealed arms show up in the Mississippi river valley area starting around 1812 through about 1845 as an attempted barrier against very high rates of white-on-white violence (the highest this nation has ever seen anywhere at any time). Clayton Cramer researched the hell out of this. It was an age of riverboat gambling, duels, drunken brawls and knife fights. My suspicion is that this lower-class white group was heavily involved in the support of the slave trade - not as owners, but as overseers, sellers and catchers - and became "culturally brutal" as a result. It's just a guess mind you but I think it was a factor.

In the period that created our Constitution, bans on concealed weapons were unheard of.

Roadrunner
07-24-2009, 10:19 AM
>>Concealing weapons in that era was frowned upon and usually illegal.<<

I doubt the former and the latter factoid about "illegal" is incorrect.

The first laws against concealed arms show up in the Mississippi river valley area starting around 1812 through about 1845 as an attempted barrier against very high rates of white-on-white violence (the highest this nation has ever seen anywhere at any time). Clayton Cramer researched the hell out of this. It was an age of riverboat gambling, duels, drunken brawls and knife fights. My suspicion is that this lower-class white group was heavily involved in the support of the slave trade - not as owners, but as overseers, sellers and catchers - and became "culturally brutal" as a result. It's just a guess mind you but I think it was a factor.

In the period that created our Constitution, bans on concealed weapons were unheard of.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/books/concealed.jpg

This is probably the book you are referencing. For anyone interested the ISBN is 0-275-96615-1.

FastFinger
07-24-2009, 10:22 AM
would you prefer to see a woman in a bathing dress....


or a bikini?



You forgot another option..

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/7350/biki.jpg

Roadrunner
07-24-2009, 10:24 AM
You forgot another option..

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/7350/biki.jpg

Guns are good, I was just trying to keep eroticism out of it.

wildhawker
07-24-2009, 10:25 AM
:eek:

FastFinger
07-24-2009, 10:31 AM
Guns are good, I was just trying to keep eroticism out of it.


Well this is a family freindly public forum, so your point is well taken. Let me fix that for you...




http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/7350/biki.jpg

Roadrunner
07-24-2009, 10:46 AM
ok :rolleyes:

Model X
07-24-2009, 12:26 PM
http://en.wikivisual.com/images/7/75/Bathing_suit_1858.png

Yeah, but its easier to pick out the cute ones if all the girls were wearing this.

wildhawker
07-24-2009, 12:48 PM
Well played, sir, well played.

Roadrunner
07-24-2009, 12:49 PM
To the moderators:

I sincerely apologize for causing this thread to devolve into focusing on a subject that is contrary to the original thread. I should have known better when I attempted to illustrate my point by comparing it to fashion. In the future I will use better judgment when using analogy to make my point.

Theseus
07-24-2009, 5:22 PM
Which is why, even in Heller they basically said that since the 2nd A did not qualify the right to bear arms, that technically even concealed carry is a right.

technique
07-24-2009, 5:24 PM
I think dueling should be brought back. Can you imagine how much more civilized our society would be if you knew you could be challenged to a duel to the death over an insult? Road rage? Thing of the past.

Thankfully dueling banjos are still legal though. Love that foggy mountain breakdown.

I second dueling....

I think we have agreed on this before!

M. Sage
07-24-2009, 6:10 PM
I think dueling should be brought back. Can you imagine how much more civilized our society would be if you knew you could be challenged to a duel to the death over an insult? Road rage? Thing of the past.

Thankfully dueling banjos are still legal though. Love that foggy mountain breakdown.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." -Heinlein

Not that all duels were fought to the death, though. In my (perhaps somewhat warped) world view, duels are perfectly valid.

M. D. Van Norman
07-24-2009, 7:02 PM
Duels were too often a cover for murder.

7x57
07-24-2009, 7:06 PM
Another problem with dueling is that it comes with a very clear notion of personal honor, one important enough to die for. We don't have that society, and without that society we probably can't have anything even resembling a real duel.

I'm not that sorry about it, frankly. I think the right to self defense should go considerably beyond "fear of your life," but dueling isn't that.

It also isn't covered by the 2A.

7x57