What the Founding Fathers said about guns

Originally posted by ipsedixit
The 2nd amendment is designed to ensure that the American people can defend themselves against a professional military.

It is not designed to ensure that the American people be able to go to the gun show, the target range or duck hunting.

I think there should be a military grade assault rifle in every home in the US, as there is in Switzerland.

That`s exactly right, they even specifically mentioned militia`s.
The purpose of a militia wasn`t to act as a police force and stop crimes, the purpose of militia`s was to fight wars.
A well regulated militia would be expected to have all the current weapons necessary to fight a war.
The founding fathers clearly intended for militias and the american people to be well armed enough to fight a war against a professional army.

the founding fathers were very short sighted.

king george was defeated by the time the 2nd amendment was put in.

i can see their argument, if they were still under the rule of king george and king george wanted to remove all guns so they would be easier to oppress, but now you're worried your own countrymen will oppress you.


which is possible, but doesn't the second amendment arm also your enemies within united states.

an unarmed people is also easier to sway into the hands of a dictator like hitler thru a flase flag like the reichstag fire.

americans are confusing independence with having a gun. they are not mutually exclusive. a gun is used to defend life and freedom, but once you have it, you can put that gun safely in a locker.

waco texas was possibly a preview of things to come, regardless of what you think of koresh and his crimes, the whole thing started because the fbi and the atf went to get his guns and he believed he had a right under the second amendment to have it and fought back.

that is what appears to have happened. by why didn't other texans rush in and help. so much for defending the 2nd amendment, he got slaughtered and the fbi killed dozens of children, even though the start of the fire is disputed, with children involved they should have waited them out, not smash a tank thru the building.

where did the fbi and atf have to go, they had the resources to wait them out for years.

but the point is, when they come for your guns you'll be alone if waco is any indication. then you have a choice to make, is the second amendment worth killing, fighting and dying for.

you can always get a new gun, and it'll be your conscience that dictates how you use it, not the constitution.

but the right course of action in a democracy is to use the courts. if they come for your guns hand them over, and fight it in the courts, that's why its there for and it's much less bloody.

reply to post by randomname

why didn't other texans rush in and help

Because that collection of people were well known to be an odd religeous cult that thought it was OK for Koresh to father children using other fellows' wives. Those folks just weren't "clean-cut ordinary Americans". The government's behavior in that incident was completely uncalled for; however, the members of that cult were not particularly good neighbors. The Second Amendment was not the cause of that sad story.

Originally posted by LifeIsPeculiar
reply to post by randomname

 

why didn't other texans rush in and help

Because that collection of people were well known to be an odd religeous cult that thought it was OK for Koresh to father children using other fellows' wives. Those folks just weren't "clean-cut ordinary Americans". The government's behavior in that incident was completely uncalled for; however, the members of that cult were not particularly good neighbors. The Second Amendment was not the cause of that sad story.

The government didn`t go to waco to take away their guns, they went there to investigate reports that underage girls in the cult were basically being used as sex slaves and being impregnated by the cult leaders.The government knew that the cult had a lot of weapons which is why they brought a lot of firepower with them when they went there.
so, anyhow it wasn`t a gun rights issue, it was an issue of a cult abusing under age girls who were basically being held prisoners in the compound.

Why leave it at 'every man' should be armed?

Why not issue a handgun to every kindergartner along with their cookies and milk, crayons and playdoh?

What could possibly go wrong?

reply to post by signalfire


Nothing if done correctly, as they will know proper gun control from an early age.

....hint hint
wink wink...

Here is what FEMA said about the Founding Fathers:
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Tardacus


A lot of people fall on this argument that the people wouldn't stand a chance against the government as a means to discredit the 2nd amendment. Not only is that inherently false it also ignores the deterrent effect.

Let's not kid here.. the government is overstepping its boundaries a lot these days. This tells you 2 important things regarding this debate about the 2nd amendment.

First.. the fact that the people haven't put together a militia and started shooting government employees and police is a testament to the reality that the gun owners are not as crazy and eager to start a civil war as many would suggest. When you have 300 million people and roughly 88 guns per person and they aren't fighting back against illegal wars; civilians, esp. children, being murdered around the world in their name; rampant corruption and oppression of the poor and middle class; corporate control over legislation; erosion of freedoms; poisons in our food; etc.. well that paints a pretty timid picture of the gun advocates that everyone wants to paint as having itchy trigger fingers. (Similar to the reality that there are a lot of concealed carry permit holders walking around never once flashing their guns never mind using them.)
I am not denying that there are those who possess guns who are unbalanced and possibly dangerous.. but they certainly aren't the majority of gun owners.

Second. If we acknowledge the obvious deterrent that is an armed populace and consider just how corrupt the government has become in spite of such, perhaps we should be willing to entertain the notion that the government would be a lot worse with a defenseless population.

And that is the real effect of the 2nd amendment. Even if we bend reality to concede to your notions that 300+ million armed civilians would stand no chance against government forces and technology.. no one wants all out chaos and war. Even if the government knew it could "win" in armed conflict with the people do you really believe it would be in their best interests of maintaining power to have an all out civil war? The people that seek to manipulate the system with corruption are doing so for power and money. They want sheep to fuel their machinations not dead wolves as a sign of their might.
Do you really think the banksters and pharma-kings want to exterminate the very source of their money and power?

Its arguments like yours that show just how little thought the majority of gun control enthusiasts have put into the topic.

Just a question from an outsider, people say that they need the weapons to defend themselves from a tyrannical government, why hasn't it happened yet? The American government seems to have a new way to crap all over their citizens everyday and people are doing nothing. Is the line of needing the guns just an excuse to keep them? I am not attacking anyone or the right to have arms before anyone jumps down my throat.

DP

United States 88.8 Guns for every 100 people (88 times more than Japan, so we should have at the very least 80 gun related deaths for every 100,000 people) 10.2 gun related deaths every 100,000 people (not quite the numbers you will expect if guns were the issue)

reply to post by yuniorsan


Take away the cops, idiots that shoot themselves, suicides and self defense, what is the number now?
From 10.2 too what 3.1?

reply to post by Todzer


Because when the US govt is compared to the repressive apostate Khamenei of Iran, Big Bully China commie leaders, HumanSlayer Assad, Narcissist corrupted Putin, and all other greedy corrupted leaders around the world, the US govt comes across far better than them all and deserves a chance to get it right.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


That is not a good attitude to have to call the other nations leaders such harsh things, from what I can see the American government is causing more trouble worldwide than those countries leaders combined. I was asking why people always use this argument and have not risen up against a government that is trying to slowly but surely strip them of their rights. Not what was peoples views on other countries leaders

Originally posted by doclec
Reply to post by antar

 

If the government does act against it's citizens, what good will an assault rifle do if for instance there are just drones in the skies dropping bombs............we really are circling the drain here

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us."

I guess you didn't understand or see it but there it is...the truth right in front of your eyes. You can't bomb all of us dude you would have to kill over 100 million people...sorry not gonna happen.

reply to post by winofiend


The American people have been divided before and will be divided again.But if TPTB show up in the streets you can take this video to the bank.

Originally posted by Sounds_of_Silence
You don't need an assault rifle to go hunting deer, you don't even need a 10 magazine clip to hunt one...but a privately listed company such as Mondanto can have their own private army...

no I need assault rifle to fight police and military should our government turn tyranical and send thier forces out to take our liberty. May never happen in our lifetime but the right to bears arms will be there to protect americans the day the government no longer serves them.

Originally posted by doclec
Reply to post by antar

 

If the government does act against it's citizens, what good will an assault rifle do if for instance there are just drones in the skies dropping bombs............we really are circling the drain here

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

How long have we been in Afghanistan? How many drones do they have?

reply to post by Todzer


'Good attitude' is only relative to whomever and whatever was spoken. I bow to no man.

What USA does is own citizens to discern and decide, needs no interferences from outsiders or those who seek to craftily fan flames.

Compared to what other nations do to their own citizens, not only stripping away their rights but outright slaughter of their own citizens, I believe other nations' citizens should look in the mirror and do some accounting on their own with their leaders instead.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Read my first comment and take notice of the last part, I asked a simple question and if you do not have an answer for it please feel free not to answer but do not read my question and get offended because you do not have an answer to it

Edit; Also as an outsider I find it very hypocritical that when I ask about anything to do with America I am told to butt out but when anything happens elsewhere in the world people like yourself seem to have an opinion. Maybe it is not us that needs to mind our own business.

Yes, I agree that it would be wonderful if there were no weapons in the world at all. Better yet, the proclivity to use weapons or have violent thoughts, period. In reality, this is not how real life is, as much as it should sadden everyone. REALITY is the key word here. Open your eyes and look around this great big, beautiful globe.

There is evil among men, of that, there is no doubt! To give any man or group of men, an advantage over others will, always enable abuse of that advantage. The only way to maintain equality is for all to be equal in every way possible.

For those of you saying that the founding documents are outdated or do not fit with the evolution of mankind to the present day, I say you are dead wrong!

--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

I understand the meaning of the word "whenever", do you?