Will, We the People Succumb To The Assault Of Our Second Amendment Right?

First a quick little note, I accidentally posted this thread yesterday morning. While editing it, I hit the wrong button
Immediately within a minute I was attacked by, trolls and Spelling Nazis who were so stupid to see that it wasn't finished yet.
I won't feed the trolls, but for the Spelling Nazis, I have a mild form of dyslexia, that is more evident when I rush to write or read something.
Now on to the thread.
Note I used Wikipedia for most of my sources, just because it's faster and has all footnotes, citations and such.

With the tragic shootings in Newtown Ct, Aurora Co, and else where in the U.S.,some of our government leaders, and many citizens, are calling for a Gun Ban and dare I say making all guns illegal to own. They site these recent shootings and those in the past as the reason why, or that in doing so we can control gun violence and crimes

You can say what ever you want, but the simple fact of the matter, is that the government has to disarm the people before they can impose more draconian measures on the populace. And stopping gun violence or crime is just the vehicle that is being used to do so.

The second amendment is for the people's right to stand against the federal government when civil discourse doesn't prevail.
This is evident in many of the writing of the framers and delegates during the drafting of the Constitution.

See these two quotes from the wiki”Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

There was an ongoing debate in the 1780s about "the people" fighting governmental tyranny (as described by Anti-Federalists); or the risk of mob rule of "the people" (as described by the Federalists) related to the ongoing revolution in France.[52] A widespread fear, during the debates on the ratification of the Constitution, was the possibility of a military takeover of the states by the federal government, which could happen if the Congress passed laws prohibiting states from arming citizens,[53] or prohibiting citizens from arming themselves.[37] Though it has been argued that the states lost the power to arm their citizens when the power to arm the militia was transferred from the states to the federal government by Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, the individual right to arm was retained and strengthened by the Militia Act of 1792 and the similar act of 1795”

Some scholars have said that it is wrong to read a right of armed insurrection in the Second Amendment because clearly the founding fathers sought to place trust in the power of the ordered liberty of democratic government versus the anarchy of insurrectionists.[49][50] Other scholars, such as Glenn Reynolds, contend that the framers did believe in an individual right to armed insurrection. The latter scholars cite examples, such as the Declaration of Independence (describing in 1776 "the Right of the People to...institute new Government") and the New Hampshire Constitution (stating in 1784 that "nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind").[51]”

Many federalist believed there was no need for a bill of rights in the Constitution Stating there were to many armed citizens that would stand up against the federal government. Federalist claimed that adding a numbered Bill of Rights,might cause rights that weren't listed not to be protected.

Anti – Federalist believed, that the federal government would disarm the militias and then seize power over the states and use the army against them. Anti-Federalist insisted that a numbered bill of rights be added to the Constitution, limiting the scope of power the federal government had.

Federalist soon became aware that there was not enough support from the Anti-federalist to ratify the Constitution, agreed to amend to it. This convinced enough of the Anti- Federalist to vote for ratification of the Constitution.

here are some quotes from the founding fathers.
Alexander Hamilton (January 11, 1755 or 1757[1] – July 12, 1804) was a Founding Father,[2] soldier, economist, political philosopher, one of America's first constitutional lawyers and the first United States Secretary of the Treasury

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[,] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

James Madison, Jr. (March 16, 1751 (O.S. March 5) – June 28, 1836) was an American statesman and political theorist, the fourth President of the United States (1809–1817). He is hailed as the “Father of the Constitution
wrote in the federalist papers, Federalist No. 46.

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.”

George Mason IV (December 11, 1725 – October 7, 1792) Father of the United States Bill of Rights.

When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually. . . . At Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention (June 14, 1788), reported in Elliot, Debates of the Several State Conventions 3:380. Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention (June 16, 1788), reported in Elliot, Debates of the Several State Conventions 3:425. That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defense of a free state. Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People", later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention (1788).

Continued in next post.

Continued from op.

Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 (April 2, 1743 O.S.) – July 4, 1826) was an American Founding Father, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the third President of the United States (1801–1809)

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Proposed Virginia Constitution, June, 1776. The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, ... or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press. Letter to Major John Cartwright (5 June 1824).

Patrick Henry (May 29, 1736 – June 6, 1799). A Founding Father, he served as the first and sixth post-colonial Governor of Virginia, from 1776 to 1779 and from 1784 to 1786.

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention (June 5, 1788), reported in Elliot, Debates of the Several State Conventions 3:45. My great objection to this government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights or of waging war against tyrants. Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention (June 5, 1788), reported in Elliot, Debates of the Several State Conventions 3:47. [W]here and when did freedom exist when the power of the sword and purse were given up from the people? Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention (June 9, 1788), Elliot, Debates of the Several State Conventions, 3:169.

John Adams (October 30, 1735 (O.S. October 19, 1735) – July 4, 1826) was the second President of the United States (1797–1801), having earlier served as the first Vice President of the United States. An American Founding Father,

Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offence. As defense attorney for the British soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre. Reported in L. Kinvin Wroth and Hiller B. Zobel, ed., Legal Papers of John Adams (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1965), 3:248. To see that the people be continually trained up in the exercise of arms, and the militia lodged only in the people's hands. Marchamont Nedhams, reported in Adams', 'A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the United States of America 3:471 (1788); Adams wrote there that "[T]he rule in general is excellent". To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 3:475 (1787-1788).

There are more quotes and many things people don't realize here in these two links.
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution andQuotes Second Admendment to the Constitution

The quote below is from the first link above I found this very interesting.

During the first two decades following the ratification of the Second Amendment, public opposition to standing armies, among Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike, persisted and manifested itself locally as a general reluctance to create a professional armed police force, instead relying on county sheriffs, constables and night watchmen to enforce local ordinances.[100] Though sometimes compensated, often these positions were unpaid—held as a matter of civic duty. In these early decades, law enforcement officers were rarely armed with firearms, using clubs as their sole defensive weapon.[100] In serious emergencies, a posse comitatus, militia company, or group of vigilantes assumed law enforcement duties; these individuals were more likely than the local sheriff to be armed with firearms.[100]

The Anti-Federalist and Federalist, distrusted the federal government so much that they wouldn't create police forces. Instead they relied on county sheriffs who were unarmed, to enforce laws. And he didn't even have a gun. When thing got serious enough, posse's, militia, and vigilantee, ie private citizens. And these guys were packin.

This is what the founding fathers had in mind, when they drafted the second amendment, they gave us the ability to resist the federal government when they have over stepped their power. For the past twenty years they have been stepping all over us. You see We The People are the power and they don't want us to know that. They want us to think it's just the, what is 435 elected officials,who run the country.

It's plain to see whats happening, the government is using the deaths of its citizens to go after one more of our rights. Just like they did eleven years ago, they are doing the same now.
Instead of focusing on the hundred's or thousand's that are already in place.

Educate yourselves and see what the founding father meant, and see how through the years the fed has manipulated the system to to have consolidated power in their hands.

I say to you that if We The People, allow this to happen we will be allowing the very thing that our foundling fathers feared and that was the enslavement of the populace to the federal government.
Some say we all ready are some say no we are not. Me I say yes if it walks like a duck and quakes like a duck, then it is probably is a duck

reply to post by hounddoghowlie

You can say what ever you want, but the simple fact of the matter, is that the government has to disarm the people before they can impose more draconian measures on the populace. And stopping gun violence or crime is just the vehicle that is being used to do so.

US stars in video demanding gun control

Brace yourself, the propaganda machine regarding your dilemma is coming into full swing.

au.news.yahoo.com...

reply to post by Sublimecraft


i think their lords and masters make them do psa's, it must be part of their contract with satan.
because so many people hang on to what ever celebrities have to say.

Nothing is going to happen.

reply to post by WaterBottle


well many people didn't think it would happen under clinton.
and we all know what they did.
the main thing that will help is the supreme court,
they up held the right twice now if my memory serves me right.

In a nutshell.

Yes. I do think the 'people' will succumb.
They've already bent over and taken so much bs from the government - well - let's just say I think the 'people' lost thier courage (nice way of putting it) and conviction a long long time ago.

peace

reply to post by silo13


that's one of the things that worries me, to many people willing to give up their liberties, in order to feel safe.
they don't realize by doing so when and if they come for them there will be no one there to defend them.

Realistically....It'll take a good part of 2013 with the raging economic crisis about to fan into a blazing fire in jan to even get an AWB passed through Congress. Then, it'll be filed against and probably have injunctions by the box full against it overnight. There it will languish in limbo while lawyers duke it out all the way back up to the Super Court ...and this court still isn't any more friendly to Obama's ideas than they ever have been.

At any rate though, even if they agree their own Heller decision allows for this as regulation..it'll be a couple years AT BEST before that all comes out as an official decision and the law which hasn't even been written yet can take effect for real. (This is assuming THIS congress can actually agree on a bill.. lol..)

Nothing is happening any time soon in reality..I wouldn't get worked up with the crowds. It's emotion from CT and this too shall pass. We new anti-gun stuff was coming no matter what happened when he was re-elected. His Illinois record made noooo secret of his stance toward weapons.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Realistically....It'll take a good part of 2013 with the raging economic crisis about to fan into a blazing fire in jan to even get an AWB passed through Congress. Then, it'll be filed against and probably have injunctions by the box full against it overnight. There it will languish in limbo while lawyers duke it out all the way back up to the Super Court ...and this court still isn't any more friendly to Obama's ideas than they ever have been.

At any rate though, even if they agree their own Heller decision allows for this as regulation..it'll be a couple years AT BEST before that all comes out as an official decision and the law which hasn't even been written yet can take effect for real. (This is assuming THIS congress can actually agree on a bill.. lol..)

Nothing is happening any time soon in reality..I wouldn't get worked up with the crowds. It's emotion from CT and this too shall pass. We new anti-gun stuff was coming no matter what happened when he was re-elected. His Illinois record made noooo secret of his stance toward weapons.

the emotion is another concern that i have, obama has proven himself to be as slick as willie was and i see him pushing this for a long time. i can see him trying to pull something off again just like fast and furious, and benghazi gate. i also wonder if they know that the bottom is about to fall out of the economy and are worried people are gonna rise up. you know with that many people with guns in the U.S. all those roits that happened in spain and greece are gonna pale in comparison.

For some perverse reason gun ownership in America has been linked with freedom. But everywhere else in the world not having to own a gun equals freedom.

This whole government NWO paranoia is costing the lives of innocent kids. You are weighing up some future imaginary risk against the very real occurrence of children getting massacred.

You Americans sure are a strange bunch. I think it's weird that some people in your country want to
place armed guards in your schools. You have already lost your freedom, you need to see that. Loosing that 2nd amendment and all of those weapons will give you more freedom than you have now.

Originally posted by silo13
In a nutshell.

Yes. I do think the 'people' will succumb.
They've already bent over and taken so much bs from the government - well - let's just say I think the 'people' lost thier courage (nice way of putting it) and conviction a long long time ago.

peace

So the people are too jaded to do anything to prevent the government taking their guns.

BUT

they still need to kill 20 kids to be able to force taking your guns away.

Is anyone still paying attention? Can you see the blaringly obvious?? Please say you do...

if not, carry on, you'll be right twice a day with alex jones and blossom.

Originally posted by LeLeu
You Americans sure are a strange bunch. I think it's weird that some people in your country want to
place armed guards in your schools. You have already lost your freedom, you need to see that. Loosing that 2nd amendment and all of those weapons will give you more freedom than you have now.

Losing a right (or more accurately: having that right restricted) does not constitute gaining freedom. That is oxymoronic.

reply to post by angrysniper


Right Snipe. These are just tools showing up to the party. I wouldnt even pay any attention to them. They scratch their heads over american ideas of freedom like a monkey scratches its azzes. Its worse really as I think some of them are part of the plot agaisnt freedom and twitch over the thought of licking boots and rounding folks into box cars for that big train ride in the sky......oh that freedom train. Remember the death camp that has the "work is freedom" over the front gate? Thats what its all about......"No weapons means freedom" will be writen on the next round of cattle trains that stop of in a small town near you.

reply to post by angrysniper


reply to post by Logarock


American ideals of freedom... Give me a break. Do you feel free when the TSA are feeling up your privates just to board a plane? Do you feel free having armed guards at your children's schools? Do you feel free living in a country where the rate of gun related homicide is 10 times that on average of almost all other 1st World nations? If this is your idea of freedom you can keep it.

You're not free to own a missile launcher, your not free to own an atomic bomb; and this is what is what you'll need if you want any chance of survival assuming your government were ever to turn against you.

So yeah, go ahead and keep your bushmasters and your pitch forks and whatever else you'll feel might protect you when an unmanned drone fires a missile at your prepper compound. I'll stick to my country where even though people aren't allowed guns except under exceptional circumstances; my kids can go to school without having to walk through a metal detector, where i don't have to worry that every thief carrys a gun and children aren't
being massacred on an annual basis.

As I said above you are weighing up some imagined NWO fear with the very real occurrence of children getting massacred. Maybe the reason the States has gone to the dogs is because instead of doing something that might actually make a difference you all just sit there with your assault rifles tightly grasped in your bony knuckes thinking 'well at least i've still got my guns'.

But hey, anything to free right...

reply to post by 1littlewolf

What country is this where you live in peace, harmony and with no concerns for the world or chance that random violence may strike? Let he who is without sin or issue cast the first stone.......recall all that?

Well...I've spent over a week now, as an American, being stoned so badly I'm about half silly...and not a thing to do with that leafy T&C violation either. Nope.... It's about time to say something....

You have your nation, we have ours. We have our weapons, you have none. We are HAPPY WITH OUR WAY OF LIFE, as you are happy with yours. I have no right to seek out new threads and discussions to ATTACK your nation and your way of life arbitrarily and just to enjoy the sound of attacking America.

Enough already.... I've had it with people who DO NOT live here...may NEVER have lived here and at best, had a tourist trip or two...telling me how my way of life is all wrong and their wisdom can show a better way.

Well. again, what Utopia is it you live in? England? Norway? Germany? France? Err...I can site MULTIPLE spree killings that have happened in EACH of those nations full of people throwing stones at us this week. Really.... ENOUGH.

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
reply to post by angrysniper
reply to post by Logarock

 

You're not free to own a missile launcher, your not free to own an atomic bomb; and this is what is what you'll need if you want any chance of survival assuming your government were ever to turn against you.

So yeah, go ahead and keep your bushmasters and your pitch forks and whatever else you'll feel might protect you when an unmanned drone fires a missile at your prepper compound.

i could pick apart the rest of your post, but i won't seeing how it would be rehashing countless other threads and posts.
but i will respond to the above statement and part of the one after it.

i'm not comparing the circumstances of there and here below, just showing your wrong about the statements you made.above.

yes it's true we can't own a missile launcher, or a nuke. and this is not what we'll need. it has been proven time and time again that a conventional approach, to and unconventional conflict or zone does not work. the two most recent places that come to mind is iraq and afghanistan.

we were iraq for 8 years2003 to 2011, used just about every conventional weapon we had. and that country is in as bad a shape now as it was then.they are still running around killing one another every day.

we're still in afghanistan, been there 11 years, and so have the taliban and other groups. we use drones there every day and fire at them. yet they are still there with nothing except hand held weapons. we bombed the piss out of their hideouts raided their compounds.use helicopters to do strafing runs, use laser guided bombs and missiles, yet they still fight on. they were in power after the russains left and will be again when we leave. you see if there develops a will strong enough among a group there is nothing short of the threat of total annihilation, that can change their will. except maybe for jihadist, you know that's what they want.

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
reply to post by angrysniper


reply to post by Logarock

 

'well at least i've still got my guns'.

But hey, anything to free right...

edit on 22/12/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)

Yea you said it....we still got those guns. Makes you sick does it?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
What country is this where you live in peace, harmony and with no concerns for the world or chance that random violence may strike? Let he who is without sin or issue cast the first stone.......recall all that?

Australia – the best country in the world

Our last massacre occurred in 1996 after which the government banned assault rifles and implemented a buy back scheme for all the weapons which had now become illegal. Ever since then all gun related crimes (mainly armed robbery and homicide) have fallen significantly and continue to do so.

Well...I've spent over a week now, as an American, being stoned so badly I'm about half silly...and not a thing to do with that leafy T&C violation either. Nope.... It's about time to say something....

You have your nation, we have ours. We have our weapons, you have none. We are HAPPY WITH OUR WAY OF LIFE, as you are happy with yours. I have no right to seek out new threads and discussions to ATTACK your nation and your way of life arbitrarily and just to enjoy the sound of attacking America.

You have every right to seek out those threads and say whatever the hell you want. Good luck finding any though.

You don’t want to hear the painful truth? Here’s a few suggestions:

(1) Don’t participate. This is ATS where people share and debate ideas. What were you expecting? A bunch of people patting you on the back supporting your straw house delusions where living in an environment completely saturated with guns is a good thing and has absolutely no correlation with the one school massacre per annum average you guys are currently averaging. Maybe you are in the wrong forum perhaps? Possibly you’ll get a better response here
www.topix.com...

(2) Go to the beach and dig a hole.

(3) Place head in sand.


As for your suggestion that ‘We’ are happy with our way of life; sorry Wrabbit but you do not speak for the entire of your country. I’ve met plenty of US citizens who completely agree with me both here and in person. I would hesitate to suggest that the parents of the Sandy Hook victims are happy now with their way of life.

Enough already.... I've had it with people who DO NOT live here...may NEVER have lived here and at best, had a tourist trip or two...telling me how my way of life is all wrong and their wisdom can show a better way.

You know what… its people like you who are as much a problem as the shooters themselves

All it takes for Evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing
-Edward Burke

This post and your point of view is seriously one of the more pathetic ones I’ve read in quite a while. At least the other pro-gunners (on the whole) are trying to counter with points that seem logical to them. You on the other hand involve yourself in a thread which is pretty much guaranteed to end up slightly confrontational, yet as soon a dissenting voice rouses itself you stick your fingers in your ears and start shouting ENOUGH!!! Quite sad really. If you really do speak for everyone in your county as you claim then it’s little wonder the once great USA is little more now than a great big international joke.

Well. again, what Utopia is it you live in? England? Norway? Germany? France? Err...I can site MULTIPLE spree killings that have happened in EACH of those nations full of people throwing stones at us this week. Really.... ENOUGH.

I would wager a substantial amount of money that the combined number of victims of the massacres in all the countries you mentioned above would not equal the body count littered across the USA.