What the Founding Fathers said about guns

reply to post by sxt004


Please stop calling them liberals.....They are far from liberal and I think "progressive authoritarians" is much more appropriate and accurate when it comes to describing them....

I really dont understand why people actually think the Govt is ABLE to take away their guns. By believing that you are only enpowering them. They can pass all the bills they want that does not mean they are going to get our guns. We need to look at this from a different perspective. If they pass a bill, citizens will rise in arms. The military is mostly composed of citizens. It would be suicide, what is the US if it does not have a army? NOTHING!!
Sure a few will stick around but not enough. Just imagine....
What would happen?
We would take control of military bases with ease because of our large numbers.
So really... what is their over all plan?
They know they cant win.
UNLESS they are using us as pawns for a bigger scheme.

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by sxt004

 

Please stop calling them liberals.....They are far from liberal and I think "progressive authoritarians" is much more appropriate and accurate when it comes to describing them....

exactly.. If that word were to be used correctly people in support of a gun in every hand would be liberals... "conservatives" are not conservative on firepower...

I'm kind of turning into a liberal libertarian with a conservative foreign policy (not republican or Obama, but actually conservative, like conserve lives, oil, tanks, goodwill) myself..

I grew up thinking guns were 'redneck' or 'republican' .. I equated this to evil and stupidity .. Hunting was evil back then for me cause they hurt the cute bunnies and deer, as I ate my slaughtered cow meat yummy.. Funny how long it took me to realize these were not my ideas, but my hippy parents' and the schools' instead..

I think I am slowly turning into a Buddhist Mountain man.. Government should have followed the middle path, but now they have picked a pole, and I must choose the other. Must balance the equation of needed freedoms and needed laws..

Let Freedom Blast !

reply to post by jademegjosh


Certainly you are entitled to your opinion and to state what you believe is satisfactory.

However, when opinion imposes upon other's Legal (Constitutional) Rights, you may re-think your wording.

The 2ND Amendment is all about SELF DEFENSE and DEFENDING OUR FAMILIES AND COUNTRY... in particular, against "TYRRANY".

With regard to Self-Defense, WHY would anyone... ANYONE, NOT... want a 30 round (40) magazine??

If you life and liberty is on the line, do you recomend a knife?

reply to post by winofiend

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.

This is either an ill-informed statement or deliberate dis-information.

State Militias are certainly not a bunch of un-trained vigilantes, they are trained and organized and tend to be the first on the scene when disaster hits. I think the Feds have been deliberately slandering state militias for the past few years, by painting militia members as right wing nuts with guns and explosives. There are folks that fit the fed profile of militia members, however they are rarely part of a statewide militia.

My home state is Missouri, and I am familiar with the character of many state militia members, they are devout in their service to their fellow Missourians, well trained, many if not most members are x-military, they are just like you and me with a greater sense of duty and service.

Over the past few weeks I have formed the idea that the Feds in their true and complete understanding of the strengths of each sovereign state have decided that without arms and additional membership that the states could be more easily manageable. They want our guns before they give us reason to swell our state Militias with willing volunteers.

I see these people everywhere, and I feel safer knowing that they are there.

Why should we care?

The constitution had a verse protecting the slave trade for 20 years too. Many founding fathers owned slaves and treated them terribly. They didn't really have the best judgement...

Article I, the part of the document dealing with the duties of the legislative branch:

Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

In other words, the government could not ban the importation of slaves for 20 years after the adoption of the Constitution. And as the designated year 1808 approached, those opposed to slavery began making plans for legislation that would outlaw the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

history1800s.about.com...

And the FF were tyrants to non slaves toooooooo

Whiskey Rebellion

The Whiskey Rebellion, or Whiskey Insurrection, was a tax protest in the United States beginning in 1791, during the presidency of George Washington. Farmers who used their leftover grain and corn in the form of whiskey as a medium of exchange were forced to pay a new tax. The tax was a part of treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton's program to increase central government power, in particular to fund his policy of assuming the war debt of those states which had failed to pay. The farmers who resisted, many war veterans, were fighting for the principles of the American Revolution, in particular against taxation without local representation.

en.wikipedia.org...

One thing to say about all this...

Some of you are so ignorant when it comes to the issue of firearms, that you should just keep your comments to yourselves. First of all, assault rifles are not legal in the US, I don't care what anyone says. An assault rifle is an automatic weapon, which are illegal. A semi-automatic M4 military rifle is going to kill someone just the same as that 30/30 deer rifle in someone's closet. There really is no difference. What about all of that is hard to understand?

And secondly, the 2nd amendment was put in place for a reason. If you do not understand that reason, then you should not have the right to be an American, as you do not know or understand the history of this country. You do not realize all of the blood that was shed for you to be born in this free country, and that is a shame. I do not know how to spell out the same argument the Founding Fathers used any better than I or they already have. If you don't get it you obviously have a comprehension problem, as it is not difficult.

If the citizens are not armed, then how can they protect their freedom and democracy? The military? The same type of military who, throughout history, has pledged loyalty to tyrants and slaughtered populations? Ya, no thanks. If someone was able to seize ultimate power in the US, which CAN happen, despite what you think, then it is feasible that they would have a plan for making the military loyal. This is not some fairy tale that has never happened before. Learn your history, as it repeats itself.

It came so close to happening in the 20th century as well. Think about this for a second. The people who jockey for POWER in this country are probably mentally handicapped from the start with a personality disorder, as normal people do not "seek" power over others, in my opinion. At the very least they likely have their own interests in mind, because THAT is how most humans are. Following me so far?

So the idea that someone would want to seize dictatorial powers in the US is not out of the question by any means. The whole system of government we use is supposed to contain checks and balances. We ALREADY have had and currently have a leader who has overstepped their LEGAL bounds. So what is going to stop them from attempting, now or in the future, to seize total control? The law? We already established that they disregard the law whenever they see fit. The ONLY reason this has not been attempted yet is because it would have caused armed opposition, because we have armed citizens.

IF a leader or high government official thought they could get away with seizing total control, they already would have moved to accomplish it. But to do it requires one of two things. Either support from the majority of the citizenry, in which case it can be done legally, or total control of the military, in which case it can be done militarily. This is IF the people do not have guns. Trying as much if the people had a way to defend themselves would be difficult, because the military guys would not want to be attacking their friends, families, and neighbors. But if the citizens were unarmed, there could be no fighting back, and the military would not have to kill nearly as many people.

These are hard facts that so many of you do not wish to address, and that is a fault in YOU. This country was founded on certain rights, so if you do not like it, then GET OUT. The majority are for guns, so you are the minority. You think that those in power do not realize how many people are getting upset over the mass amounts of shootings going on? Don't you think it is a little suspicious that the banning of guns has been on the wire for quite a while, and then all these shootings start to happen. And not to mention that there are many, many inconsistencies involved with these shootings. Do you not question that? And then for those who are informed, do you not think about how many times it has been said, by various people, that Israel uses this exact tactic against those who do not play ball with them? Am I the only one who sees these things? Taking guns away will NOT solve the issue of people getting shot or killed, and I doubt the numbers will be reduced. You will only hurt the country by banning guns, not help it.

Anything that is semi-automatic, and below a certain caliber, should be legal. We are already at a disadvantage against the weapons of the military, so we are already close to defeating the purpose of our Founding Fathers...If we have nothing but 22's and pistols, we are really going to be screwed if we have to use them to protect our liberties. And liberty and rights for the masses are much more important than the life of one person. As I said, many more have died to give you those rights, and more benefit has come from those rights, than have been harmed by them. And this goes for most of our rights, including the 2nd amendment.

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
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.

Ok you got me, but they had other automatic weapons back then
en.wikipedia.org...

In 1777, Philadelphia gunsmith Joseph Belton offered the Continental Congress a "new improved gun", which was capable of firing up to twenty shots in five seconds, automatically, and was capable of being loaded by a cartridge. Congress requested that Belton modify 100 flintlock muskets to fire eight shots in this manner, but rescinded the order when Belton's price proved too high.

Look at that, even before the constitution was fully ratified, the continental congress themselves were asking for an inventor to modify their muskets to make them automatic!!!!!

Can you still say that our founders had no idea of automatic weapons and the future of weaponry?!


The founders of this nation were some of the most intelligent men to have ever lived. Who are we to doubt what they say and how they intended their new country to be? As one of my professors once said, "Yes, we know more today than they did back then because we lave a larger base of knowledge and information, but the founders of this country were far more intelligent than anyone who has ever graced the earth."

i.e. they were far more intelligent than anyone today in raw brainpower and thinking skills, they just did not have wikipedia or the internet to do research with.

reply to post by Zarniwoop

uhuh, too immature to read what was actually written, i see

it's more likely you were just hoping to pick at something

hmmmm, still refusing to answer any of the questions posed ... duly noted.

actually, short of jumping through flaming hoops continuously moved by the US govt ... that's more difficult than one would think, however ... not if you make your own
www.tacticalinc.com...

pssst ... my Beretta handgun cost more.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus


Well said, my friend. Totally agreed.

Originally posted by pacifier2012
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.

What part of read the Federalist Papers do people not get?

The 2nd amendment among other things was a compromise between those who wanted a standing army and those who saw the danger to the people posed by a standing army.

The 2nd has been and always will be the check on state power.

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...

Deer and hunting have no relation to the Second Amendment. If they did, the SA would mention them. Citizens need to be armed when Monsanto, Blackwater and Halliburton come for us.

/TOA

reply to post by Bilder


The deliberate division of the USA into two is being fuelled by emotion. When the Civil War starts, I hope you'll go after those who really created it (Kissinger springs to mind) and not your brain-washed neighbor who doesn't know any better than all the stories on the tv that say "guns kill children".

Or be martyrs... they won't be expecting that. It's how we will be remembered that matters.

I'll add that guns and people do not an army make. Just because you have a weapon does not mean that you know how to clean it (yes, after so many rounds fired it needs cleaned of gunpowder residue. YMMV depending on the grain capacity of the round being fired), and how to sight it in to actually hit the target.

Yes, weapons need sighted in on a target range to become accurate. There's a procedure of forming a shot pattern, and adjusting the sights accordingly. Merely handling a weapon can bump a sight out of calibration, if it's handled by an inexperienced user. A newly purchased gun? I wouldn't trust it to hit a target until I personally sighted it in with at least three shot patterns. The first two shot groups are intended as calibration shots, and the sights are adjusted each time. Every weapon ever made has adjustable sights, and it's the duty of the owner to ensure that it is "sighted in". That process becomes a responsibility, and it's an inherent fact in the Founding Father's statements about "arming" citizens. I find it sad that someone can buy a gun, load it with bullets, and shoot, getting the "thrill" of rounds going off, without knowing true gun responsibility.

There's a huge variance in having a gun, and knowing how to strip it down, clean it, and sight it back in to accuracy. Back when EVERY citizen had a gun, the knowledge of maintaining your gun was taught to you by your parents. It brought food to the table, and defended your property. It was an instrument that was treated with respect.

Methinks we've lost the respect for our weapons.

Of all the statements made by our Founding Fathers concerning the second amendment, this one speaks the loudest for me.......

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

I prefer the wisdom of these men over the knee jerk reactions of people that are so easily lead around by their noises.

reply to post by projectvxn


Just quoting one of your senators on the news...apart from the Monsanto bit....

My post below, was taken out of context, I heard someone whether he may be a senator or whomever say what I quoted apart from the Monsanto part, which ties in with Assault rifles and many other HEAVY weapons, how many excuses do they want to throw at their agenda of having a Gun free America, when the likes of Monsanto are allowed to have their own private army...to bend the arms of civilians?

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...

Originally posted by howmuch4another

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" :lol

:

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

Now that quote was the best one i have ever heard on this subject

reply to post by seeker1963

I concur. "Liberal" is derived from Liberty which means Freedom. These progressively communistic authoritarians or statists are the antithesis of individual freedom. They crave control and structure which seems counter intuitive for those like Bill Ayers who were counter culture revolutionaries in the late 1960s and early 1970s...most belong in therapy to reconcile that contradiction methinks.