What the Founding Fathers said about guns

Originally posted by HauntWok
Least gun manufacturers still can make a massive profit off of the gullibility and feeble mindedness of a easily terrified people that they can dupe into believing that the government will ever be able to take your guns away.

Good job, keep it up.

lol

I have actually been waiting for a thread with the topic something along the lines of "Newtown Shooting a Ploy by AR-15 manufacturers to increase gun sales" --- that is the next step in the conspiracy.

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.

reply to post by Zarniwoop

little to no sense ??
is that an age issue or a sight problem?

i didn't say you were anti-2nd, where'd you get that idea ?
and please, answer the other question ... what does portable have to do with it ?

cap-n-ball.com...
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

in light of the above, why shouldn't we have gatling guns today ????

reply to post by DoubleDNH

clearly, it worked ... www.abovetopsecret.com...
"official 2012 FBI gun sales" ... up 39% nationally.

Originally posted by DoubleDNH

Originally posted by HauntWok
Least gun manufacturers still can make a massive profit off of the gullibility and feeble mindedness of a easily terrified people that they can dupe into believing that the government will ever be able to take your guns away.

Good job, keep it up.

lol

I have actually been waiting for a thread with the topic something along the lines of "Newtown Shooting a Ploy by AR-15 manufacturers to increase gun sales" --- that is the next step in the conspiracy.

They most certainly are profiting from it to say the least. Gun sales are up 35-40% Ammo more than 200% in some cases.

You trust FOX news right?

And this before the election...

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.

You keep your inferior weapon. I would choose more advanced weaponry to maintain some kind of equilibrium. If we turn out on opposing sides, woe be to you!

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.

Yep. Thats what countless african and indian tribes said when the took up their trusty bow and arrows against assorted british firearms over the years.

reply to post by Honor93

is that an age issue or a sight problem?

Maturity level noted.

i didn't say you were anti-2nd, where'd you get that idea ?

It's possible I misunderstood your pun.

and please, answer the other question ... what does portable have to do with it ?

I thought you might be comparing Galting guns(not very portable) to modern automatic weapons (portable)

in light of the above, why shouldn't we have gatling guns today ????

You can. They are perfectly legal to own (not sure about all states). However, they are prohibitively expensive due to their rarity.

LEAVE BRITTANY ALOOOOONE

reply to post by projectvxn


Lol. My brother and I had talked about that. If there would be a loophole if Fiendstein put no "clips" over 10 rounds, would we still be able to own, buy, and sell magazines with over 10 round capacity?

Originally posted by jademegjosh
So basically the americans are trigger happy!!!

edit on 10-1-2013 by ADVISOR because: it needed a second line

Trigger happy?

Think of it more as not afraid to pull the trigger when need be.

Let the crazies keep their guns. All the p1ssing and moaning is giving me a headache.

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.

I was fighting a mob on Facebook under Bill Maher a couple weeks ago, one guy said this. I'll tell you what I told him.

"When properly formed" is a pretty solid statement, considering our current situation. Now it takes at least two things to even think about forming a militia, 1. guns. 2. people. Now... if the ban guns ARs and Semis, then that only leaves people with inadequate weapons, so what kind "proper" militia can be formed? It is a trick. People don't realize they won't be able to form anything. If they do, then they probably trust their government enough to think they will give their guns back. Think again. Once they're gone, they're gone forever. They will do what they want, and our only option to liberty will be death.

Originally posted by ajay59

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.

You keep your inferior weapon. I would choose more advanced weaponry to maintain some kind of equilibrium. If we turn out on opposing sides, woe be to you!

You'll shoot yer eye out...

I'll add that the founding fathers (yes, I said "fathers") thought "arms" so important that they put that word in the Constitution.

Actually take some time to read it, they don't really mention other *specific* "objects" that are protected ("persons, houses, papers, and effects" in the 4th Amendment).

Kind of seems like, by mentioning "arms" and not other stuff, they though it was pretty important, eh?

The LAST thing Our Founding Fathers had on their minds, in writing the 2nd. Amendment, was PROTECTING DEER HUNTERS.

reply to post by Bilder


In today's society, the founding fathers would be considered racist, sexist, bigots.

Why should I listen to what they had to say about absolutely anything?

reply to post by projectvxn



For those who wish to better understand "WHAT" the 2ND. AMENDMENT was "for" ...

The 2ND. Amendment is FOR, TODAY... RIGHT NOW !

reply to post by WP4YT

en.wikipedia.org...
well to be fair at the time the constitution was signed the closest thing the world had to a machine gun was the puckle gun and it could fire at a rate of 9 rounds per minute(where as the standard infantry rifle/musket of the day could fire at best 3) but if you got a source for us having Gatling guns back in the day id be stoked to see it.
but even the Puckle is not a true automatic as its hand cranked like a Gatling gun(also legal to own with out permit as long as it is manually cranked to fire it)

on the cannons yeah cannons were defiantly included in the 2nd amendment and you can still get most black powder cannons today with out any kind of permit(but they are pricey) i think the only federal restrictions on such cannons are what they can/cant fire and off the top of my head i can only think of them banning explosive cannonballs as projectiles(i think you would need a tax stamp)but again if you have a source for a semi auto cannon id again be stoked as ancient weapons and weaponry are one of my interests

only type of artillery i can think of that MAY possibly consider being "automatic" would be a volley gun or the like with multiple barrels but one powder tray(sort of implying that one fuse fires multiple rounds could in theory be compared to a weapon where you hold the trigger and it fires multiple times)but that would most likely be stretching it

interestingly enough while flame throwers aren't federally regulated at all one could in theory also try to state that since the Byzantines used Greek fire back in the bc days that flame projecting devices are also protected by the second amendment as they had been used as an infantry weapon in a time before the ratifying of the constitution

(sorry for rant btw) en.wikipedia.org...
the first semi auto matic fire arm that i could find was this

The first successful design for a semi-automatic rifle is attributed to German-born gunsmith Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher, who unveiled the design in 1885.[1] The Model 85 was followed by the equally innovative Mannlicher Models 91, 93 and 95 semi-automatic rifles.[2] Although Mannlicher earned his reputation with his bolt action rifle designs, he also produced a few semi-automatic pistols, including the Steyr Mannlicher M1894, which employed an unusual blow-forward action and held five rounds of 6.5 mm ammunition that were fed into the M1894 by a stripper clip.

so only a 100 years past the ratification of our constitution so i think they had an idea of the types of weapons we would have some day as even in 1882 they were working on what looks quite simaler to modern automatic weapons (take a look at a modern mini 14 compared to this one)

like the mondragon rifle of Mexico

The Mondragón was a Mexican battle rifle and the world's first automatic rifle.[2] It was designed by Mexican general Manuel Mondragón and was the first fully automatic firearm able to be operated by a single rifleman. Mondragón began his work in 1882 and patented the weapon in 1887. It was gas-operated with a cylinder and piston arrangement, now very familiar but unusual at the time, and rotating bolt, locked by lugs in helical grooves in the receiver; it was also possible to operate it as a simple straight-pull bolt action. The caliber was 7mm (.284 in) Mauser and the rifle was available with either an 8-round or 20-round box magazine, or a 100-round drum magazine (for variants produced after 1910).

so again just 100 years after the Constitution was signed they were working on full autos (albeit in their infancy)

Yes, but the people didn't have an Army then, they were the Army. Now there is an Army.

So privately armed citizens no longer protect the country from invasion, therefore they no longer need guns for that purpose.

Try again.