Founding Fathers Battle Gun Grabbers From the Grave

In the following piece from infowars.com, which has expanded far beyond just Alex Jones, Aaron Dykes digs up quotes from the instrumental politicians of the time, and reaffirms THEIR intent with the second amendment. Make no mistake about it, and let not the words be confused whatsoever.

Its intent was to give the people the means by which to have a last recourse of armament against tyrannical government:

The Founding Fathers agree: an armed population makes good government. Numerous quotes from the revolutionary era make their intent extremely clear — that individuals were meant to keep and bear arms for the protection of the country and the defense of its Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The 2nd Amendment is in place to discourage dictators and protect the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

www.infowars.com...



And I will reaffirm my position on this clearly. Regulation = Infringement.

While I will agree that in today's age of nuclear weapons and high powered super weapons, there needs to be controls against those falling into the wrong hands, I will also reaffirm another position on this clearly:

Those weapons are being directed by the wrong hands, for political and monetary gain. And have been for quite a long time.

The big question now is what to do about it. And there are no easy answers.

But suppose for a minute that we took that intent literally, across ALL WEAPONS. The intent was for the people to have in their control, cumulatively, MORE FIRE POWER than the government.

So my question then becomes: Why is it, and how is it, that we have allowed such a small group of people to CONTROL THE MOST POWERFUL WEAPONS?

That goes against EVERY INTENT of the founding fathers. And honestly, there may be a solution, even if it is just temporary: to dissolve this federal government, and return equally and evenly, ALL WEAPONS AND GOVERNMENTAL POWER TO THE STATES, for starters.

The bottom line is that there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE WHATSOEVER for the federal government to solely hold ALL THAT FIREPOWER. But once they had it, they damn sure started taking other powers, and that snowball has led us straight down the path to hell.

Something HAS to be done. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do think the problem is clear. Way too much, concentrated in the hands, of way too few. Had those few shown the restraint and humility to only use them in the most dire of circumstances upon an invasion of this country, things might be different. As it stands, they CANNOT, and SHOULD NOT be trusted with another damn thing.

I'm standing right beside you.

Some how, word has to get out to the majority, that what is going on wrong and can be changed. For the better, as in more like they used to be, even though they can't be exactly. I know 80s America, and older, is a thing of the past, aka history.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

But that doesn't mean those of us who remember, can't resurrect those best parts, and bring them into the new millennium.

"Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome." — Dr. Samuel Johnson


"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the roar of its many waters." — Frederick Douglass

Our "Founding Fathers", would not want those who know, to do any thing other than preserve, that which is good for all.


Just as it was then, so too must it be today. A small group of the people, organized at the local level. and coordinated across the colonies, to make a change.

Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may. ~Mark Twain

My favorite quote from the video, in @ 6 min;

It is the duty of the Patriot to protect his country from its government. .. Thomas Paine,

My two favorite Thomas, see above quote, with my signature below;

Well what do you think ADVISOR about the potential solution that I am proposing of the dissolution of the federal government, and returning all power to the states? Think that could work?

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Well, since you ask.

As I'm confident you may have read the thread, as for the others who may not have, I've often suggested starting here. True Patriot Reading List- "Give Me Liberty A Handbook for American Revolutionaries"


Great thread though, I really enjoyed the highlights of that video.

It gits me blood all goin.

reply to post by ADVISOR


Ok, cool. Wow, had not seen that thread. I'm on it. Need some time to digest.

But you got your flag and star back. As to your other commendation, thanks much, but obviously I cannot help you back on that one.

Did you guys know George Washington and Hamilton started the first "federal reserve"?

And went to war with the American people for rebelling against a tax?

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, contended that they were fighting for the principles of the American Revolution, in particular against taxation without local representation, while the Federal government maintained the taxes were the legal expression of the taxation powers of Congress.

Throughout counties in Western Pennsylvania, protesters used violence and intimidation to prevent federal officials from collecting the tax. Resistance came to a climax in July 1794, when a U.S. marshal arrived in western Pennsylvania to serve writs to distillers who had not paid the excise. The alarm was raised, and more than 500 armed men attacked the fortified home of tax inspector General John Neville. Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to enforce the tax. With 13,000 militia provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, Washington rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency. The rebels all went home before the arrival of the army, and there was no confrontation. About 20 men were arrested, but all were later acquitted or pardoned.

en.wikipedia.org...

The First Bank of the United States was a central bank, chartered for a term of twenty years, by the United States Congress on February 25, 1791. Establishment of the Bank was included in a three-part expansion of federal fiscal and monetary power (along with a federal mint and excise taxes) championed by Alexander Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury. Hamilton believed a central bank was necessary to stabilize and improve the nation's credit, and to improve handling of the financial business of the United States government under the newly enacted Constitution.

en.wikipedia.org...

If you're gonna worship banking puppets like a large amount of the founding fathers, you might as well worship Obama.

Not to mention most of them had no problem owning other human beings as property, raping and abusing them.

Pick better Americans to idolize please.

reply to post by WaterBottle


I'd prefer to think of this as idolizing ideas rather than idolizing people. However, I don't think the world will EVER be free from the fact that absolute power corrupts absolutely. No one can seem to resist. Except perhaps, Ron Paul.

reply to post by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Ok, cool. Wow, had not seen that thread. I'm on it.

Need some time to digest.

Hmm, it's a good thing I didn't assume then, for well known reasons, I try not to.

It is a good thing I had mentioned it and bumped then. I've tried to keep it on the recent page, but it's so busy in here.

There is always a solution, it is just a matter of deciding the correct one.

Funny, I thought most folks understood where the US got it's real power from.
Hint: it was not from listening to "Scare em all Alex Jones", I thought by now and by his meltdown on the Piers guys show that was abundantly obvious.
But I guess if that's what you wanna follow then by all means follow the fearmonger.
Me, I write the politicians, yep even my idiots here in Kalifornia, I go to rallies, I spread the message, all without blowing up and causing a panic.

reply to post by g146541


Yeah well some people can understand his outrage, especially with the research he's done. I am not condoning it, cause I am guilty myself sometimes, but the guy's got one billion facts in his head that culminate in constant frustration as the world just keeps right on moving along, getting worse everyday. Strides don't seem to be moving whatsoever in a corrective direction.

And besides, this piece wasn't even written by him. That is in the first sentence of the OP. I stay on the fence about him. But I stay on the fence with life in general. Processing information is a piece meal task- some of it's good, and some of it's not.

But this piece in particular rang enough bells to get the patriotic juices flowing.

reply to post by g146541

Me, I write the politicians, yep even my idiots here in Kalifornia, I go to rallies, I spread the message, all without blowing up and causing a panic.

you write to politicians who dont read, go to rallies that politicians dont pay attention to, and spread the word to others who do the same, mostly useless, things. not tryin to be harsh but i dont think you achieve much.

perhaps it is time for some blowing up.

reply to post by TrueAmerican

No one can seem to resist. Except perhaps, Ron Paul.

Idolizing another human again.

Exactly. This is what I have been preaching for a while now on ATS. People still do not seem to understand though, which makes me wonder, considering it is not hard to grasp. I have even said the same thing about any weapons the military have should be allowed to civilians, as this was the point of the 2nd amendment. Therefore any regulation is illegal, and should be null and void.

The politicians have already gotten away with so much by letting regulation happen in the first place, and they are lucky that the population at the time was not as keen on protecting their Constitutional rights as we are today. I would have joined in the fight against regulation, if the rest of the country was ready. But when things get taken too far, that is when those they call gun "nuts," who are really just patriots in the Founding Father's sense of the word, will push back. There will be an insurgent force, very large, within the US borders. We have already seen what happens when attempting to fight an insurgent force amongst a civilian population. Let's see how far the US government will push.

And you wonder why all of these shootings are getting attention now...It is propaganda, plain and simple. It would not surprise me if many of these attacks were ordered by a group like the CIA, under the direction of the president. Worse things have been done by the CIA in the past, things we can confirm through their own documentation. So no one can sit there and say that it is not possible. It is more than possible...It is probable.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
In the following piece from infowars.com, which has expanded far beyond just Alex Jones, Aaron Dykes digs up quotes from the instrumental politicians of the time, and reaffirms THEIR intent with the second amendment. Make no mistake about it, and let not the words be confused whatsoever.

Its intent was to give the people the means by which to have a last recourse of armament against tyrannical government:

And I will reaffirm my position on this clearly. Regulation = Infringement.

...(etc.)
So my question then becomes: Why is it, and how is it, that we have allowed such a small group of people to CONTROL THE MOST POWERFUL WEAPONS?

edit on Wed Jan 23rd 2013 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)

This is the original presentation to congress. There is no mistaking the intent.
You can change the intent to suit your agenda but you cannot misinterpret it.

"The people shall not be restrained from peacefully assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the legislator by petitions, or remonstrances for redress of their grievances.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no persons religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. "

memory.loc.gov.../llac001.db&recNum=227

"a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country" is not a sentence that stands by itself. So, we know it qualifies and explains those words which come before it. You may insert the word "BECAUSE" between the two fragments.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well armed and well regulated militia is the best security of a free country. Yet any person morally opposed will not be required to fight.

The original verbiage of the 2nd amendment was more to protect people from being forced to bear arms and fight battles for their King when they wanted to live a quiet life at home minding their own business.

Presently many people might dismiss a fear of being enlisted but they do see a need to make guns a little harder for crazy people and criminals to get. The people are exercising their own constitutional right and consulting for the common good. They are petitioning for restrictions on high caliber weapons being made available to the mass market. They are for example, asking the law requiring background checks be enforced. It is not so unreasonable.

While others, such as yourself, (and the "lets pretend we're animals" group I am certain cares not a wit about wildlife ) are working overtime to confuse the issue, and effectively make it easier for a massively growing number of over or under medicated violent lunatics, murderers and thieves to enjoy what you are all badly misinterpreting, and trying to call a "constitutional protection" to be armed.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I fear you have hit the nail on the head my friend. We are at the precipice. The United States as we know is coming to an end. With the right catalyst this once great country is on the verge of civil war. It is still the quiet mumbling in bars, clubs and groups of men and women who truly believe in liberty and freedom.

The Feds know it as well as the power brokers behind them. Everyone is trading lightly and testing the waters. While many of the sheepling will fall in line, I fear, the true patriots will take the first volley hard. Only through initial sacrifice will the truth become clear. It cannot be a lone gunman or small group, it must be larger scale, it must be a state that stands up and says enough, keep your federal aid, keep you federal everything, this state will stand alone, We are leaving the Union.

At that point, things will change. That is the scary truth of where we are headed. The only other alternative is to lay down with the sheepling and be led to slaughter. Great post.

reply to post by WaterBottle


While one can find good and bad in any historical figure, I think the points here are:

1. We are a people founded on the ideals of equality and liberty
2. We are imperfect and as such our founding fathers have imperfections
3. You are concluding that since our Founding fathers were imperfect the ideals are therefore flawed

I stand behind the ideals, not the men, for we are all flawed at the end of the day and we evolve as men and women to live up to those ideals. It was those same slave owners, rapists, etc. you so easily put, that led to a government of the majority that ended those practices. We evolved. Can we evolve past the need to harm one another? Maybe, one day, but as the world churns today no. Greed and corruption are slowly eroding what we have evolved to. Mass brainwashing has turned this society on end, contrast television of the 50's to today, you will see a completely different programming strategy and content.

Idolize no man or woman, but use their ideals. Mother Teresa was not without flaws I am sure, for she was a human, but her ideals of caring for the poor continue to this day.

I have said before, I will willingly give up my guns when you can prove to me the world presents no threat. In my lifetime, I will not see that. Good enlightening counter point and content. We must stay focused on ideals, not those that espoused them.

reply to post by sweord


Last time I wrote the politicians, I got a condensending response that stated pretty much they know what is best for me. I seriously doubt that, but I will answer with my vote.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus

I have even said the same thing about any weapons the military have should be allowed to civilians, as this was the point of the 2nd amendment.

If this is the case, why bother with a government?
What's to govern? Skirmishes between battlefields?

well, they were revolutionaries.

what good would a revolution be without the ability to defend it.

so any one proposing bans on guns in violation of the constitution is a counter revolutionary.

but if they legally, with in the frame work of the constitution change it, and you resist you will be the counter revolutionary.

in every revolution there has to be a time when you put down the gun and pick up the plough, the book, the hammer or the pen and hope you never need the gun again.

but it has to be unanimously and voluntary for there to be peace.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Did you guys know George Washington and Hamilton started the first "federal reserve"?

And went to war with the American people for rebelling against a tax?

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, contended that they were fighting for the principles of the American Revolution, in particular against taxation without local representation, while the Federal government maintained the taxes were the legal expression of the taxation powers of Congress.

Throughout counties in Western Pennsylvania, protesters used violence and intimidation to prevent federal officials from collecting the tax. Resistance came to a climax in July 1794, when a U.S. marshal arrived in western Pennsylvania to serve writs to distillers who had not paid the excise. The alarm was raised, and more than 500 armed men attacked the fortified home of tax inspector General John Neville. Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to enforce the tax. With 13,000 militia provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, Washington rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency. The rebels all went home before the arrival of the army, and there was no confrontation. About 20 men were arrested, but all were later acquitted or pardoned.

en.wikipedia.org...

The First Bank of the United States was a central bank, chartered for a term of twenty years, by the United States Congress on February 25, 1791. Establishment of the Bank was included in a three-part expansion of federal fiscal and monetary power (along with a federal mint and excise taxes) championed by Alexander Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury. Hamilton believed a central bank was necessary to stabilize and improve the nation's credit, and to improve handling of the financial business of the United States government under the newly enacted Constitution.

en.wikipedia.org...

If you're gonna worship banking puppets like a large amount of the founding fathers, you might as well worship Obama.

Not to mention most of them had no problem owning other human beings as property, raping and abusing them.

Pick better Americans to idolize please.

edit on 23-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)

Once again you choose what you want from a referance and leave what doesn't fit your opinion.Ok here's a thing you left out about the Whiskey rebellion.

The Whiskey Rebellion was the first time the U.S attempted to enforce the legislative powers of the Constitution,giving Congress the RIGHT to collect and LEVY taxes.

So while they were enforcing the Constitution.They were if fact prodecting it.Hmmm...sounds like men of their word to me.