What the Founding Fathers said about guns

Originally posted by winofiend

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Oh I love these kinds of threads, my turn!

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"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."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

edit on 10-1-2013 by ADVISOR because: it was ok...

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"

"A militia, when properly formed..."

"when properly formed..."

Look around, do you see the people? Are they formed in any manner close to properly?

Seems it's not so much a properly formed citizenry as a group of self absorbed vigilantes who are making the most noise.

It always comes back to protecting people from the bad guys. Which the police are supposed to do. But everyone thinks of themselves as the pinnacle of what the founding fathers had in mind. I bet you that if it were possible for them to have seen what the populace would become, they would have made it clearer what the intent was... and not simply by then standards.

Properly formed... so many people without restraint.. not so formed and certainly not properly.

The police are not there to protect citizens. They are there to enforce laws after a crime has been committed. Police response times also back this up. There aren't enough officers of the law to even begin to protect people from crime.

As for making their intent clear. It's pretty damn clear what their intent was. In fact their writings on the matter are pretty explicit. If certain people can't understand or assimilate what it is they said, that is not the fault of lawful gun holders.

the Beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
Thomas Jefferson

has anyone considered the possibility that the horrific acts of late that we've endured are the direct result of cause and effect ??

cause - continued impingement of natural rights
effect - i'll show you

pretty basic stuff guys, really.

Originally posted by skyzeagle
reply to post by davolobos

 

The 2nd Amendment is not about checks and balances at all.

It is "In Case of Emergency, Break Glass."

People have destroyed any vestige of glass a long time ago, and the more assault rifles and semi-automatic guns and high capacity clips that are bought and owned...it pretty much tears down the entire box on the wall.

Checks and balances would be a group who's sole purpose it was to report on possible claims of threat against the citizenry, then act upon it accordingly. To foment the fears of people to the point that an entire industry is born upon those fears is absolutely not checks and balances. That's capitalism.

The weapons must be in the purview of the citizens. Weapons locked up at the armory are not. "the right of the people" whatever else that means in relation to the state and state militias, does mean that the citizens themselves have the right to "keep".

Originally posted by abeverage

Originally posted by Xeven
reply to post by abeverage

 

d
But the people had the same tech thier goverment had which is the point.

Actually the British had better supplied weaponry. We had numbers and better tactics. It is a stupid assumption to think that your brother/uncle/cousin in the military will round up it's own people. To what end? Until they are also imprisoned?

Laughable

I do not need a high capacity weapon, or an assault riffle to defend my home or to hunt.

It is not "a stupid assumption" to think your country's military is capable of rounding up its own people. They've done it countless times since the beginning of time. History repeats itself. Some of us remember that.

Originally posted by Wolf321

Originally posted by whisperindave
Do you have a tank with a flame thrower and sound weaponry? No? Well the Police and Feds do! And they use them all the time! What do you think your AK 47 or Bushmaster will do when they DO come knocking on your door, wondering why you just bought five thousand rounds of armor piercing ammo? That's what happened to David Koresh. It's not 1776 anymore!

Exactly! See what happens when the government is given more power than the people, they can do whatever they want because they have more firepower. And yet here you stand saying we should give up even more means to resist so they can have an even easier time forcing us to do whatever they want.

Yes and now its the federal government and folks therein that are saying "hay look at how strong we are. You dont need to worry about protection. Just give us the guns now".

As well a few out of a very many go off the ranch and the fed and press wants to indict the whole. The gov cant even control prescription drugs. have you seen the figures on death every year from prescription drugs? I dont know anyone that has been shot to death but do know about 10 that have died using some sort of whats called "controled substances". And these dumba##es are going to control guns? No thanks.

Originally posted by jademegjosh
I agree you dont need machine guns and assault rifles in ur home.why not just stick with ur small hand gun.Ill tell you why because americans want bigger and better. check out sons of guns on discovery channel,there nuts.some guy went in and asked them to make a zombie gun for crying out loud,and they made it lol. Jesus guys get a grip of this situation...

Here is the grip on the situation. If you open a history book you will see that every tyrannical Government disarms their population before taking full control of the people. You would also understand that tyranny is the norm for our species and that the only reason why there is even a shred of freedom in this modern world is because of America and her founding fathers. The fact is, America is the prize.

The new world order is the old world order. Everything these people say is backwards. It is Kings and Emperors ruling over humanity with an iron fist. The constant boot on the throat of the slaves. If you want to return to brutal dictatorship, hand in your guns. Read 1984.

Originally posted by LipstickMystic
reply to post by Bilder

 

I'm sorry, as a US citizen with a brain, you lost me at "Founding Fathers."

To me that just operates as cultural/nationionalistic mind control, sort of like saying "Jesus died for our sins." The words seem to have a similar impact on many people living in the US. Use the words "Founding Fathers" and you get a bunch of people whose eyes glaze over, who roll over on their backs, and who blindly accept whatever interpretation people want to offer .....about what? A bunch of misogynistic white slaver Masons who crafted a document a few hundred years ago? So fuccckkkking what. Seriously?

I don't care about the Constitution or the founding ff#kkking "fathers." And I know that there are many who share my irreverence toward what some hold to be some holy document dictated by men worshipped as, essentially, "Gods."

Well I will give you that it is so in cases. I have seen it. Have seen it used for just about everything from selling cars to you name it.

However many of us in hear are the type that try to figure out what was going on in the founders heads and durring their time to get a better understanding. I particularly enjoy James Madison but there are a few places in the Federalist Papers where I think his great political mind gimped out.

It may suprise some to know that many of the arguments made aginst strong central government back in that day are the same as many made today. Madison and Hamilton managed to defuse these. For example the issue of possible runaway federal spending under the "welfare" language in the constitution was voiced by some but madison lost his mind and left the thing wide open. We can thank him in large part for our modern day welfare state. Why he couldnt see what people were talking about is hard to understand other than he didnt want the fed to be weak by having its cash flow restricted to the point it couldnt do anything.

Anyway folks in the fed and big government money spenders sure like that part of his thinking. Many of same dont like his wording of the 2nd amendment. Cant have it all now can we. Some of the same folks wanting those big government Disaster Relief checks out in NY dont know that the same guy that made this possible was the same guy that wrote the 2nd amendment.

Read it and weep you freeking libs. How much fed money has Feinstein secured for her home state? Well it was madison that left the barn door open on federal spending.......same guy that wrote the 2nd dummy!

reply to post by Camperguy


Bill We are on the same page on protecting tbhe home from intruders... I have commented elsewhere on a post where a woman shot an intruder in her family home five times. I have no problem with that. I suggest she get a "man stopper".

There is a problem with the shootings.

I am thinking out loud here.
Do we need assault weapons to protect the home? Should assault weapons be kept at home???

These are the issues for me.

Tiger5

PS the regular army will always have better weapons due ot he military industrial complex.

Originally posted by winofiend

Originally posted by ADVISOR
reply to post by Bilder

 

Agreed.

United We Stand, The Rest Is, Not An Option!

It's a pipe dream mate. American citizens are already divided far beyond that which any national anthem can band them. yet you're all supposedly one people when it comes to having a shooter.

I don't believe it. It certainly isn't something that shines out as obvious.

It would be nice it if were true, but the people of the USA fell divided a while ago.

All I have to say to you "mate" is when the $H!7 hits the fan you just stand back and watch how it's done. I can guarantee you we won't be bending over like you guys did. Quite the contrary.


-Alien

reply to post by Tiger5


Tell me whats the matter with assault weapons to protect the home?

What better weapons is the government going to get? Laser guns?
Anyways whatever they get we will have also, an overwhelming percentage of military personnel will defect along with their weapons.

So, it was okay 30 years ago to have assault weapons but something changed?

Yeah something changed.......the government. The government is ever reaching for more control over the citizens.


-Alien

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
reply to post by Tiger5

 

Tell me whats the matter with assault weapons to protect the home?

-Alien

Nothing wrong, millions do it every day.

But now we have the anti gun public policy nuts riding in on the backs of dead children and pointing at assault weapons holders and saying "look what yous guys did". They want all to believe that an Adam Lanza resides behind evey assult weapon.

Originally posted by Vidpci
Here is the grip on the situation. If you open a history book you will see that every tyrannical Government disarms their population before taking full control of the people.

Read those same history books and you'll see none of those tyrannies had something like the internet to contend with. I'd be more worried about them restricting the internet than I would them restricting what weapons I can own legally.

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
reply to post by Tiger5

 

Tell me whats the matter with assault weapons to protect the home?

What better weapons is the government going to get? Laser guns?

Anyways whatever they get we will have also, an overwhelming percentage of military personnel will defect along with their weapons.

So, it was okay 30 years ago to have assault weapons but something changed?

Yeah something changed.......the government. The government is ever reaching for more control over the citizens.


-Alien

Ever thought it might be because they think a significant number of their citizens need to be kept under control? It's not like you've created a Utopia over there, is it?

The Founding Fathers also wrote what they did in the context of a flint-lock muzzle loader. Today's equivalent being a simple rifle or handgun.

The right to bear arms is NOT in the spirit of owning a weapon that can take out 30 people in a few seconds.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by Alien Abduct
reply to post by Tiger5

 

Tell me whats the matter with assault weapons to protect the home?

What better weapons is the government going to get? Laser guns?

Anyways whatever they get we will have also, an overwhelming percentage of military personnel will defect along with their weapons.

So, it was okay 30 years ago to have assault weapons but something changed?

Yeah something changed.......the government. The government is ever reaching for more control over the citizens.


-Alien

Ever thought it might be because they think a significant number of their citizens need to be kept under control? It's not like you've created a Utopia over there, is it?

Yeah a significant number like ALL....
You wouldn't agree that they already have enough control?

We will not give up our guns and let ourselves fall to a tyrannical government as in Germany, France, Italy or other countries where their citizens laid down like good little calves only to be betrayed by the government they entrusted in.

"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it," -George Santayana



-Alien

reply to post by Alien Abduct


I'm sure you've heard the expression "the pen is mightier than the sword" and the other one "live by the gun, die by the gun," haven't you? Do you think there's any truth in either?

Originally posted by WP4YT
The argument that they only had muskets back then and that the founders didn't foresee automatic weapons is FLAWED. Truth is, they did have automatic weapons back then called gatling guns which were far more deadly than any automatic weapon that can be purchased legally today! They also had burst fire semi auto cannons that could take out a small platoon!

And what about cars? They only had horses back then. Cars kill more people these days than guns do. Would the founders have not allowed us to have these mobile killing machines? Would they say "horses only" for America?

Get real, you anti gun nuts!

edit on 10-1-2013 by WP4YT because: (no reason given)

They didn't have gatling gun back then you fool.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Originally posted by mad scientist

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

The reason was that the situation in Syria started out as protest.Then led to armed revolt it started out with Firearms and the people THERE have not been run over.

Are you that ignorant? It started off with highly trained insurgents. 99% of Syrian people have nothing to do with it. Western intelligence agencies are inundated with intelligence reports of foreign jihadists flooding Syria. The FSA has committed just as many atrocities as Assad's government is accused of. Started by the people? If you believe that then you are indeed a fool.

99% of the people wanted nothing to do with it ??? Either you are simple or your hatred for guns or the U.S.A has blinded you.Maybe the vemon you spew in your posts has caused a vessel to burst in your head.

I remember watching the protest in Homs at the begining.There was a lot lot more than 1% of the people there.Also in the begining of the revolt they only had mainly rifles.They seized they rest of the equipment. Or people some of them considered allies brought it.Who their allies are is not my concern.Or are you so arrogant you think you should be the one to tell them who they should fight for or who they should fight with.So after reading your replys to other posters on this subject.Even with all you "amens" and I can't believe their arrogance"
your arrogance is the one that show's.

By contradicting your other post you have shown yourself to be a hypocrite.So spew back all the vile vemon you can hurl.I won't feed your ill informed anger with a reply.

edit on 11-1-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-1-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)

So my presenting facts about the Syrian conflicts is hating the USA......here we go. You do know the FSA (insurgents) have committed terrible atrocities against the people they are supposed to represent or that a large number of them are foreign fighters.
So when America fights these people they are terrorists, when other countries do they are freedom fighters representing the people. Hoe ridiculous.

I haven't contradicted anything. You're ignorance is palpable, but hardly surprising. Stop being so defensive and actually read about what's going on.

reply to post by mad scientist

They didn't have gatling gun back then you fool.

tip ... it is better to remain silent and let them think you're a fool rather open your mouth and remove all doubt.

gatling guns were developed and ACCEPTED nearly 100yrs after the Constitution was ratified.
hence, they were conceived, considered, implemented and utilized ... all under the protections of the 2nd Amendment then ... and they certainly should be equally included/protected, now.

oh, and since y'all keep straying from the topic of this thread ... a reminder

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun." Patrick Henry

and, just how far have we already strayed from the original intent ???
perhaps it is time to find our way back to where we began.

reply to post by Honor93


The question is, would you have got your precious 2nd Amendment ratified in the first place had gatling guns been invented pre-Constitution?