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.
There was an ongoing debate in the 1780s about "the people" fighting governmental tyranny (as described by Anti-Federalists); or the risk of mob rule of "the people" (as described by the Federalists) related to the ongoing revolution in France. A widespread fear, during the debates on the ratification of the Constitution, was the possibility of a military takeover of the states by the federal government, which could happen if the Congress passed laws prohibiting states from arming citizens, or prohibiting citizens from arming themselves. Though it has been argued that the states lost the power to arm their citizens when the power to arm the militia was transferred from the states to the federal government by Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, the individual right to arm was retained and strengthened by the Militia Act of 1792 and the similar act of 1795”
Some scholars have said that it is wrong to read a right of armed insurrection in the Second Amendment because clearly the founding fathers sought to place trust in the power of the ordered liberty of democratic government versus the anarchy of insurrectionists. Other scholars, such as Glenn Reynolds, contend that the framers did believe in an individual right to armed insurrection. The latter scholars cite examples, such as the Declaration of Independence (describing in 1776 "the Right of the People to...institute new Government") and the New Hampshire Constitution (stating in 1784 that "nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind").”
If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[,] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion 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 of 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.”
When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually. . . . At Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention (June 14, 1788), reported in Elliot, Debates of the Several State Conventions 3:380. Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention (June 16, 1788), reported in Elliot, Debates of the Several State Conventions 3:425. That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defense of a free state. Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People", later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention (1788).
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Proposed Virginia Constitution, June, 1776. The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, ... or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press. Letter to Major John Cartwright (5 June 1824).
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention (June 5, 1788), reported in Elliot, Debates of the Several State Conventions 3:45. My great objection to this government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights or of waging war against tyrants. Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention (June 5, 1788), reported in Elliot, Debates of the Several State Conventions 3:47. [W]here and when did freedom exist when the power of the sword and purse were given up from the people? Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention (June 9, 1788), Elliot, Debates of the Several State Conventions, 3:169.
Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offence. As defense attorney for the British soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre. Reported in L. Kinvin Wroth and Hiller B. Zobel, ed., Legal Papers of John Adams (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1965), 3:248. To see that the people be continually trained up in the exercise of arms, and the militia lodged only in the people's hands. Marchamont Nedhams, reported in Adams', 'A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the United States of America 3:471 (1788); Adams wrote there that "[T]he rule in general is excellent". To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 3:475 (1787-1788).
During the first two decades following the ratification of the Second Amendment, public opposition to standing armies, among Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike, persisted and manifested itself locally as a general reluctance to create a professional armed police force, instead relying on county sheriffs, constables and night watchmen to enforce local ordinances. Though sometimes compensated, often these positions were unpaid—held as a matter of civic duty. In these early decades, law enforcement officers were rarely armed with firearms, using clubs as their sole defensive weapon. In serious emergencies, a posse comitatus, militia company, or group of vigilantes assumed law enforcement duties; these individuals were more likely than the local sheriff to be armed with firearms.
You can say what ever you want, but the simple fact of the matter, is that the government has to disarm the people before they can impose more draconian measures on the populace. And stopping gun violence or crime is just the vehicle that is being used to do so.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Realistically....It'll take a good part of 2013 with the raging economic crisis about to fan into a blazing fire in jan to even get an AWB passed through Congress. Then, it'll be filed against and probably have injunctions by the box full against it overnight. There it will languish in limbo while lawyers duke it out all the way back up to the Super Court ...and this court still isn't any more friendly to Obama's ideas than they ever have been.
At any rate though, even if they agree their own Heller decision allows for this as regulation..it'll be a couple years AT BEST before that all comes out as an official decision and the law which hasn't even been written yet can take effect for real. (This is assuming THIS congress can actually agree on a bill.. lol..)
Nothing is happening any time soon in reality..I wouldn't get worked up with the crowds. It's emotion from CT and this too shall pass. We new anti-gun stuff was coming no matter what happened when he was re-elected. His Illinois record made noooo secret of his stance toward weapons.
Originally posted by silo13
In a nutshell.
Yes. I do think the 'people' will succumb.
They've already bent over and taken so much bs from the government - well - let's just say I think the 'people' lost thier courage (nice way of putting it) and conviction a long long time ago.
Originally posted by LeLeu
You Americans sure are a strange bunch. I think it's weird that some people in your country want to
place armed guards in your schools. You have already lost your freedom, you need to see that. Loosing that 2nd amendment and all of those weapons will give you more freedom than you have now.
Originally posted by 1littlewolf
reply to post by angrysniper
reply to post by Logarock
You're not free to own a missile launcher, your not free to own an atomic bomb; and this is what is what you'll need if you want any chance of survival assuming your government were ever to turn against you.
So yeah, go ahead and keep your bushmasters and your pitch forks and whatever else you'll feel might protect you when an unmanned drone fires a missile at your prepper compound.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
What country is this where you live in peace, harmony and with no concerns for the world or chance that random violence may strike? Let he who is without sin or issue cast the first stone.......recall all that?
Well...I've spent over a week now, as an American, being stoned so badly I'm about half silly...and not a thing to do with that leafy T&C violation either. Nope.... It's about time to say something....
You have your nation, we have ours. We have our weapons, you have none. We are HAPPY WITH OUR WAY OF LIFE, as you are happy with yours. I have no right to seek out new threads and discussions to ATTACK your nation and your way of life arbitrarily and just to enjoy the sound of attacking America.
Enough already.... I've had it with people who DO NOT live here...may NEVER have lived here and at best, had a tourist trip or two...telling me how my way of life is all wrong and their wisdom can show a better way.
Well. again, what Utopia is it you live in? England? Norway? Germany? France? Err...I can site MULTIPLE spree killings that have happened in EACH of those nations full of people throwing stones at us this week. Really.... ENOUGH.