It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Of course I have. That's why the input of foreigners is useful. Because while I have reasonable idea as to what propaganda I have been exposed to, it's best to triple check.
OK let's check your little theory out then: What did men like George Mason state was the primary reason for Citizens to bear arms?
originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: stormbringer1701
Nothing to do with the documents or history, it is simply the mentality. Justifying the need for something simply based on documents centuries old is the same type of perspective many christians have.
Legally in the UK you still have to practice archery on Sundays but we don't, tines change.
Please leave strawman type arguements out. It helps amplify the smugness.
To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.
Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty...Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: stormbringer1701
Somewhat. While I agree with the sentiment, it is often what our judicial system is based on.
Of course not, but the difference is in whether that person reaches for a knife, or their trusty AR-15.
Ideally I'd like to see somewhat stricter guns laws in unison with the introduction of actual, community-driven militia.
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "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, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
It was never my intention to suggest you had ads for guns to begin with. They are likely quite uncommon, if more than the one I linked even exist.
I'm not sure I've seen any Americans arguing for the control side here, however? Even I am not. It is true that this is not a representative sample, however.