It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Founders on the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms

page: 1
60
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+48 more 
posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
 


As the unceasing drumbeat to dilute the 2nd Amendment continues one of the arguments that typically appears is that the Founders would have had qualifiers on a United States Citizen's rights to keep and bear arms. This, of course, shows a rather deep and profound misunderstanding of their intentions and sentiments regarding the ability for private citizens to possess firearms.

The Founders and Framers did not expect the private citizenry to be subordinate to the military in regards the ability to own arms but to have equal parity as they were and always should be considered the militia. George Mason, co-author of the 2nd Amendment:


"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."


The understanding that the citizens are the militia was not a belief solely held by Mason, Richard henry Lee also understood this was the foundation of the 2nd Amendment:


"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"


And the rationale of an armed citizenry was paramount in the mind of the Amendment's other co-author, James Madison:


"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."


The understanding and support for a armed citizenry was understood by both political parties of the era. The Democrats:


"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson


And the Federalists:


"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton


There is no ambiguity in their minds that an armed populace was central in their belief of a self-sustaining and regulating government. This fundamental belief extended further, the infringement of any of the Bill of Rights freedoms was unacceptable:


"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson


The final quote will show that the Author's of the United States Constitution did not intend for future generations to change its meaning, but to use it as a guide for determining law based upon the struggles that lead to its writing:


"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice William Johnson, June 12, 1823



+18 more 
posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   


The Founders and Framers did not expect the private citizenry to be subordinate to the military in regards the ability to own arms but to have equal parity as they were and always should be considered the militia. George Mason, co-author of the 2nd Amendment:


This was the TRUE intention of the second amendment.

Quite a shame that some people don't get that, and never will.

The second amendment was NEVER about hunting, and 'sporting'.

It was the last check to balance the power of the state.

That is why it was written.


+2 more 
posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   
The facts in your OP cannot be overemphasized, especially in these times when some of our fundamentals are being tampered with, i.e., nudged.

Politicians and political commentators that pose as journalists continue to try to change the narrative. They continue to mock 2A supporters and try to paint them as people with violent tendencies or "Bubba" types that shout "from my cold dead fingers", when, in actuality they are mainly people like you that are well-versed in the history, the facts, and the fundamental principles that the 2A stands upon.


+14 more 
posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

...and why it's the Second Amendment. Second only in importance to the First Amendment.

One allows us to sound the alarm. The second allows us to do something about it, or have the tools at hand, at any rate.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
The facts in your OP cannot be overemphasized, especially in these times when some of our fundamentals are being tampered with, i.e., nudged.


That 'nudging' is not limited to a desire to curtail the 2nd Amendment, we see the same desire to curtail other Rights, considered uninfringeable by the Founders, but political expediency and ideology continually attempt to erode them.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The Founders were certainly intelligent and thoughtful men. However, the constitution was written 225 years ago in a time when being on parity with the military meant something entirely different than it does now. I'm not for disarming people but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that it's practical for the public to possess military weaponry.

Fighter jets?
Bombers?
Drones?
Tanks?
Nukes?

The Constitution creates the foundation for an extensible framework, it's not equatable to something intended to be immutable like the Ten Commandments.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Remind me again why I should hold the opinions of the "founders" higher than anyone elses?


The same guys who spoke of equality while not allowing women to vote...the same guys who spoke of freedom while owning slaves.

Yes...tell me why I should think they had a firm grasp on reality and why we should have to continue to conform to their outdated opinions?


edit on 23-6-2014 by kruphix because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
But,but,but you really think the average redneck should have world killing anti-matter weapons?I suppose Joe sixpack should have photon torpedoes?Think of the children!!!!



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

No, I doubt even the most liberal interpretation of the Constitution covers those things. But you don't need those things to be very dangerous to a govt. bent on oppression.

Guerrillas are very rarely, if ever, on a technological par with their opponents. Hasn't prevented many from being very successful.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The Founders were certainly intelligent and thoughtful men. However, the constitution was written 225 years ago in a time when being on parity with the military meant something entirely different than it does now. I'm not for disarming people but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that it's practical for the public to possess military weaponry.

Fighter jets?
Bombers?
Drones?
Tanks?
Nukes?

The Constitution creates the foundation for an extensible framework, it's not equatable to something intended to be immutable like the Ten Commandments.


I love it when red herrings get brought in to a GUN FIGHT.

As it is some 'justification' for making draconian laws, LOTS of LAWS since the 1934 Gun Control Act to modern day.

That is ALREADY covered with a LAW that says people can't murder another.

So some support making more laws that people are not going to follow.

Because the simple fact. It is IMPOSSIBLE to legislate human behavior.

The only thing LAWS do is punish people after the fact.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The Founders were certainly intelligent and thoughtful men. However, the constitution was written 225 years ago in a time when being on parity with the military meant something entirely different than it does now. I'm not for disarming people but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that it's practical for the public to possess military weaponry.

Fighter jets?
Bombers?
Drones?
Tanks?
Nukes?

The Constitution creates the foundation for an extensible framework, it's not equatable to something intended to be immutable like the Ten Commandments.


I love it when red herrings get brought in to a GUN FIGHT.

As it is some 'justification' for making draconian laws, LOTS of LAWS since the 1934 Gun Control Act to modern day.

That is ALREADY covered with a LAW that says people can't murder another.

So some support making more laws that people are not going to follow.

Because the simple fact. It is IMPOSSIBLE to legislate human behavior.

The only thing LAWS do is punish people after the fact.




But,but,but......restraining order!!!!



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I appears some people need to read this over before coming to the debate table.

Link



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Agreed. I believe the 2A, however, is so fundamental to freedom, that more than any other, it is being targeted the most. The most radical of this agenda believe that "the end justifies the means". (See Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky.)

Whoever these agenda-makers are (I won't speculate here), they have already succeeded in disarming citizens in other western countries. When they finally succeed....or, I should say IF they succeed.....in doing so to American citizens, then we will all be powerless subjects, imo. THAT'S when the real SHTF. America is a hard nut to crack though with people that stay informed and vigilant.

If there were no power-hungry tyrants in governments and elsewhere, we could all "beat our swords into plow shares and our spears into pruning hooks", but that isn't an option right now. If anything, the power-hungry would-be tyrants seem to be everywhere.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: neo96

...and why it's the Second Amendment. Second only in importance to the First Amendment.

One allows us to sound the alarm. The second allows us to do something about it, or have the tools at hand, at any rate.



I think this is backwards the 2nd is the most important. Without it you wouldn't be able to keep the 1st. A good poll would be how long do you think the 1st amendment would last without the 2nd. The results would be interesting.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Remind me again why I should hold the opinions of the "founders" higher than anyone elses?


The same guys who spoke of equality while not allowing women to vote...the same guys who spoke of freedom while owning slaves.

Yes...tell me why I should think they had a firm grasp on reality and why we should have to continue to conform to their outdated opinions?



Yay, red herring!

Let me introduce my own red herring; Are you saying the people should not have any ability whatsoever to overthrow a government run amok?

Further, because you disagree with the right to bear arms, it can be reasonably expected that you think we should all live in slavery?

Inequality based on race and/or sex was commonplace during the time of the Founders... What was NOT commonplace was the idea that The People had an obligation to keep their government in check. Should we abandon all good ideas if they come from a person or people who also have some bad ideas?

The entire point of the Constitution and the process through which we amend it is that the world is constantly changing and therefore We The People need the ability to constantly change our government to correspond.. Were The Founding Fathers perfect? Probably not. Did they revolutionize government and representative democracy? Absolutely.


+1 more 
posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix




Remind me again why I should hold the opinions of the "founders" higher than anyone elses?


Those are not 'opinions'.

The Bill of RIGHTS is LAW. The US constitution is LAW.

The highest LAW in the land.


And while we are on the subject might want to read up on the 9th amendment while we are on it.



Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Anyway a person looks at the topic.

The US government, and the masses have exactly ZERO authority over guns in this country.

NONE.



Amendment II 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.


The 'enumeration' in the constitution was specifically laid out.

The right of the people BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.

The RIGHT of the people to keep, and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

The right to bear arms is a CERTAIN RIGHT.

That can not be 'construed' to DENY or DISPARAGE that RIGHT that was laid out in the second.

I ask why listen to anyone who doesn't even bother to read the highest LAW in the land.
edit on 23-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
It's interesting.

In this thread a GOP candidate threatens muslims with withholding 1st Amendment rights.

Which is wrong.

I'd expect the same people to defend the 2nd Amendment rights just as much.

Oh well.

I guess I'm wrong.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


I love it when red herrings get brought in to a GUN FIGHT.

As it is some 'justification' for making draconian laws, LOTS of LAWS since the 1934 Gun Control Act to modern day.

That is ALREADY covered with a LAW that says people can't murder another.

So some support making more laws that people are not going to follow.

Because the simple fact. It is IMPOSSIBLE to legislate human behavior.

The only thing LAWS do is punish people after the fact.


Actually, you're misrepresenting my position completely. I'm only pointing out that the Constitution is not an immutable thing, it was always meant to be updated by subsequent generations. People quote the Founders as though they were prophets and the Constitution as though it were a religious scripture.

We're more than capable of making our own laws. We don't need to rely on the abilities of men who have been dead for hundreds of years to foretell the future when it's our own present circumstances. That's a ridiculous notion and one that would not be supported by any of the Founders were they alive today.

edit on 2014-6-23 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Not really. This is an issue that, while important, has been, for many, done to death.

The other thread, which I've posted on, is a different topic.

Though you are, to an extent, right. But I feel just as strongly on this issue, as I do on that one. So, too, do many.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: neo96


I love it when red herrings get brought in to a GUN FIGHT.

As it is some 'justification' for making draconian laws, LOTS of LAWS since the 1934 Gun Control Act to modern day.

That is ALREADY covered with a LAW that says people can't murder another.

So some support making more laws that people are not going to follow.

Because the simple fact. It is IMPOSSIBLE to legislate human behavior.

The only thing LAWS do is punish people after the fact.


Actually. You're misunderstanding my position completely. I'm only pointing out that the Constitution is not an immutable thing, it was always meant to be updated by subsequent generations. People quote the Founders as though they were prophets and the Constitution as though it were a religious scripture.

We're more than capable of making our own laws. We don't need to rely on the abilities of men who have been dead for hundreds of years to foretell the future when it's our own present circumstances. That's a ridiculous notion and one that would not be supported by any of the Founders were they alive today.


The Founding Fathers changed government worldwide, much for the better..

The provided a very thoughtful and effective framework with which to preserve that change.

The Bill of Rights is more than just a few ideas or "opinions." It is literally the framework that I mentioned above.

Some respect is definitely deserved for the men who made it possible for you to express these opinions today.




top topics



 
60
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join