What the Founding Fathers said about guns

CUT and DRY:

I, along with the American public am requesting the current Bans and Regulations of firearms in the United States of America be deemed unconstitutional and forfeit their rulings. This is to include and not limited to all “class 3” NFA items (SBR, Full Auto, AP Rounds, Suppressors, Machine guns and destructive devices). This petition is in regards to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights constituted in the Constitution of the United States in 1791. The second amendment reads as follows:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Specifically the later of the bill:
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
As noted in plain English the amendment addresses that the “people” = American Citizens, have the right to keep and Bear = Own/Carry/Transport, and that RIGHT shall NOT be INFRINGED upon.
Infringed = To encroach on someone or something.
And,
Encroach = To take another's possessions or rights gradually or stealthily.
The current Legislation/Bans and proposed future bans, regulation and legislation encroach on the rights of the American citizen by definition and therefore are deemed by definition both illegal and unconstitutional. Any further legislation is unconstitutional and is equal to treason under the oath of office in which all representatives of the American people take upon entering office. That oath is as follows:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. “
This oath is sworn in at all public offices since 1884. Any legislation or vote for legislation against the amendments of the bill of rights by definition has broken this sacred oath and is in fact an act of treason.
Treason = Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign/A betrayal of trust or confidence.
This petition is requesting in plain English that the current bans be lifted immediately and that any further bans be constituted as illegal and unconstitutional. It is not requesting that representatives be tried for treason but rather any law or legislation or regulation that infringes or encroaches on the rights of the American Citizen as published by the bill of rights and the constitution be forfeit and nullified. This would include but not limited to (tax stamps, Assault weapons ban, Ammunition bans, Concealed Carry laws, Destructive Devices ban, Machine gun ban, and any other law, regulation or legislation which encroaches on the right of an American citizen to freely and willfully own a firearm or other device).


**This petition is based on the text and not any one person’s beliefs or opinion. No ideology is being interjected into the 2nd amendment but rather the meaning and definition are being extracted by form of Exegesis.
Exegesis = Critical explanation or analysis, especially of a text.


Whether you like it or not this is our right and not just fire arms but rather all arms.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
— Thomas Jefferson (attributed to Jefferson, by his contemporaries)

"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
— Thomas Jefferson (attributed to Jefferson, by his contemporaries)

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
— Benjamin Franklin (on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania - 1759)

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
— James Madison (attributed to Madison, by his contemporaries)

Sounds like the forefathers knew exactly what would happen and their foresight was dead on with the current encroachment on our freedoms! Support the constitution! not politicians and their misguided ideologies!

hmmmm. i don't see very many Founding Father quotes, so here's one of my favorites ...

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

and many more from the same link

and one other ... same link

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "[color=amber]Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

it would seem our current adminstration is stuggling with the words ... 'every man' and 'infringed upon' ... perhaps someone should send them a memo ??

reply to post by Honor93


Exactly!!! I have been trying but barry wont pick up the phone

Originally posted by ADVISOR

Originally posted by jademegjosh
americans want bigger and better

Not true, I own a .45 pistol.

No other firearms.

You have heard what they say about a feller who only owns one gun, right?

"Beware the man who only has one gun. He probably knows how to use it!"

i love that quote but I will add one..

"the only reason to have a pistol is to fight your way back to your rifle"

Originally posted by GunzCoty

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

Actually if you take away just the accidental discharges and suicides you end up at 3.7
The stats for police killing people and self defense are incomplete but I'm sure that would further whittle it down to less than your 3.1 estimate.

reply to post by Tardacus

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.

you are either mistaken or washed, your choice.

however, the ONLY reason ATF was even present was due to the 'false claim' that Koresh was stockpiling illegal weapons ... that was a lie, it was proven to be a lie that was acted upon with great malice.

woe be to those who fail to see and understand that which is before them.

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...

Wow. Hope you were being sarcastic or i read this the wrong way.

When the we first came to America, the Indians didn't stand a chance because of superior weapons we had to theirs. With that being said, the "policing" forces in our borders carry automatic weapons don't they? They carry pistols that aren't used for hunting, don't they? The second amendment was put into place to keep both "foreign and domestic" oppression from happening here. So are we suppose to use lesser weapons against forces that have better weapons than us and be expected to stand our ground?

You people are absolutely insane when i hear comments like, "you don't need a fully automatic rifle to go hunting". Guess what, no one is denying why they have these types of weapons, it's not for hunting purposes, but it's not for going on killing sprees either. It's for protection. Can a shotgun protect you as much as another weapon, sure. But if someone taking your possessions or harming your family has you overpowered and is using something like an assault weapon, why should you not be able to have the same thing? If you only have a knife and someone has a rifle, how are you going to adequately defend yourself? If you have that said shotgun which is worthless from a distance, how are you going to defend yourself against a rifle that can make a shot from a distance?

I love how liberal and anti gun pull at straws for bull# that no one is even bring up. It's a joke and just goes with the liberal way, "if we can't deny it, change the subject or throw some sort of curveball in the mix as a distraction". That's one of the main reasons i don't consider myself a liberal. It's all just a bunch of misdirection. Liberals keep racism alive, violence alive, and every other form of discrimination. If a white beats up a black or vice versa, it's because of race, not because the person tried to harm them or steal from them. If someone works hard and busts their ass to make money, then the lazy should still get their share. If a half black guy runs for president, let's play on his race and divide the nation. He isn't even half black. His mother was white and his father was both kenyan and arabic. BUT because arabs don't sit well with the general American public, let's play the black card and keep bringing it up, which incites racism.

reply to post by sxt004



news.yahoo.com...

This story gets all the attention on every news outlet, BUT

www.chron.com...

this is barely shown AND

abcnews.go.com...

And this is from even before all the Colorado and Connecticut shootings

abcnews.go.com...


It's sick. It's sad that you liberal jerk offs don't want to talk about this. This happens everyday but shhhhhh let's just get rid of the good stories and talk about horror stories so our agenda can be pushed.

reply to post by randomname

Waco is a good template; local and federal cooperation (including military assets)....as long as they are coming for "so and so" because he has illegal guns or a warrant for his arrest versus coming for all of the guns from everyone.

Under NDAA however, you wont have a legal redress in the courts.

The plan of the founding fathers went out the window a long time ago.

Waco was not about targeting any one man or group of men and any REAL person knows this! Waco was all about targeting an ideal, and that ideal was that no man or group of men will challenge the authority and idealism of the powers that be!

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.

I totally agree! Criminals would have to be crazy to break into your house if they knew you had an M60 in the closet.

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!

reply to post by WP4YT

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!

The Gatling gun was designed by the American inventor Dr. Richard J. Gatling in 1861 and patented November 4, 1862

Gatling Gun

Even if they would have had them back then, they were not highly portable weapons.

Pretty sure a musket shot only one round...

reply to post by Zarniwoop

what does 'portable' have to do with it ??
it's not the citizens marching on Washington

point is ... today's armament isn't quite what they had access to then, is it ???

which is yet another anti-2nd argument shot out the door (pun intended)

Originally posted by abeverage
Pretty sure a musket shot only one round...

Well good luck.

reply to post by abeverage
d
But the people had the same tech thier goverment had which is the point.

reply to post by ajay59

They dont have a major siege or pick "April 19" for one person - it is an attack on a principle - but people do not come to the defense of that principle because they are not then coming for their guns next (at the time) and they can rationalize that it was just for Koresh b/c of _________________ (fill in the blank).

reply to post by Honor93

which is yet another anti-2nd argument shot out the door (pun intended)

I'm not anti-2nd, and your posts makes little to no sense