What the Founding Fathers said about guns

reply to post by mad scientist

Actually Leonardo Da Vinci had plans for a Gatling Gun like device (in a row as opposed to cylindrical)....he made drawings (plans) for a lot of futuristic war machines - but it was never made (but the idea was there long before the American Revolution) and certainly known to our Founders.

What the Founding Fathers said about guns

Well is very simple, we should always protect our rights to own them regardless of what the corruption we call government tells us their version of the 2nd amendment means to them

What is there anything else to understand?

I thought so.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

uh, yeah ... we won the war of Independence, remember ?
that word, independence, also reflects growth and innovation as well as the application of said growth and innovation.

perhaps that is the single word holding you back ?
say it with me ... I N D E P E N D E N C E, INDEPENDENCE, Independence, rah, rah
oh yeah, in case you forgot, we won.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by mad scientist

 

Actually Leonardo Da Vinci had plans for a Gatling Gun like device (in a row as opposed to cylindrical)....he made drawings (plans) for a lot of futuristic war machines - but it was never made (but the idea was there long before the American Revolution) and certainly known to our Founders.

Which should make one question their blase approach to allowing the public unrestricted access to whatever weaponry they could get their hands on, not praise their handling of it. How long after the military's development of the gatling gun did it become available for civilians to buy?

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

uh, yeah ... we won the war of Independence, remember ?
that word, independence, also reflects growth and innovation as well as the application of said growth and innovation.

perhaps that is the single word holding you back ?
say it with me ... I N D E P E N D E N C E, INDEPENDENCE, Independence, rah, rah

oh yeah, in case you forgot, we won.

You forgot to add "USA! USA! USA!" and a "YEE HAR NASCAR!" to live up to your stereotype fully.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

actually, i'm not a nascar fan but you keep believein' whatever you will.
i'm just an American, so, what do i know ?

oh and btw, the new labels are patriot or traitor ... choose yours and wear it with pride

reply to post by Honor93

Aha, yes... Patriotism. The last refuge of the scoundrel. You carry on blowing your little trumpet and rallying your mini-militias and I'll keep a look out for you in the headlines.

ps. It's hilarious hearing some of you gun advocates threatening to start doing Taliban tactics on your own govt.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by Alien Abduct

 

I'm sure you've heard the expression "the pen is mightier than the sword"

The pen would serve you well if the justice system was just, If the laws that were implemented were implemented by the people and not a self serving corrupt government looking only to take away freedoms for more control. But that is becoming less of a case.
But, as of right now I would agree with you, yes. The pen is mightier than the sword. But when the pen fails we will have the next best thing in our arsenal.....the sword.

You see here in America its "We the people" not "We the government" We're the boss. WE make the rules!

and the other one "live by the gun, die by the gun," haven't you? Do you think there's any truth in either?

I think you may have misinterpreted this quote. You see this means those who go forcing their way around imposing their will wrongfully with the sword will eventually have the same done to them.

It is one thing to take up a sword in DEFENSE of your family or property or freedom. It is yet another to take up a sword in an offence for the interest of rich power hungry politicians.

If a group of men forced their way into your home with full intentions of raping your daughters and wife would you take up a sword? Or would you watch and do nothing......

........or would you take up a pen?



-Alien

Originally posted by Tiger5
reply to post by Camperguy

 

Bill We are on the same page on protecting tbhe home from intruders... I have commented elsewhere on a post where a woman shot an intruder in her family home five times. I have no problem with that. I suggest she get a "man stopper".

There is a problem with the shootings.

I am thinking out loud here.
Do we need assault weapons to protect the home? Should assault weapons be kept at home???

These are the issues for me.

Tiger5

PS the regular army will always have better weapons due ot he military industrial complex.

Well being ex military I can tell you Im most proficient with the M16. You can kill someone with a knife,spoon,pencil. Do we need semi-auto military (looking) weapons for home defense....I do. It all depends on the type of criminals you might encounter. Honestly I used a standard Colt .45 Delta Elite to thwart my criminals because it was in the closest safe.I live in Mass and the assault weapons ban is still in effect. We have to go not only through a Federal background check but a State and City as well as a Certified firearms safety course, 3 Letters of recommendation and a interview with the police chief to get a license and that license can come with restrictions such as only back and forth to a shooting range, or hunting only and might go as far as having the firearm locked in a case separate from the ammunition . Every firearm we purchase is registered with the state and all hi-cap mags are banned. A couple of months ago a "professional" criminal killed his girlfriend and shot a State cop with an AK47S rifle with a hi-cap mag. The gun was banned, and unregistered and being a criminal it is against the law for him to own any firearm, so that being said criminals will always have access to firearms no matter what laws or bans are put into effect. This isnt England or Austrailia a ban is just going to increase the amount of firearms on the street, Capitalism at its best.Hell our own government supplies firearms to criminals.

As far as the military backing a gun confiscation, not anyone I know or police for that matter.My 2 best friends are Military and Police, we have had this conversation in depth and they have talked to their comrads as well, up the chain of command.This question is being asked all around the police depts and in Military circles. It will be BATF, Fema, CIA, FBI,NSA and if they get really desperate TSA.

A military looking weapon is like a high horsepower sports car or a Sportbike its the person behind the wheel thats responsible for the actions of the device. Guns are only made to kill you say, well dont look at auto death statistics then. A Firearm is a tool, you can use that tool for defense of yourself or a nation, you can use it to punch holes in paper (very fun) you can use it to put food on your table or unfortunatley in the wrong hands a tool of murder.

I wish I could wave my magic wand and make all the bad people go away but my definition of bad, Im sure is not what someone elses definition would be. Thats why no one person should have the ability to define what the path of the masses is, because that person would go insane with power, no matter what moral ground they think they are standing on.


Bill

reply to post by IvanAstikov


what's hilarious is some 200+yrs AFTER the invaders were beat down, they keep coming back for more now that's the definition of hilarious ... it's also the cornerstone of insanity.

it's no different than the bully on the playground taking the game ball away (Lexington/Concord) and then crying in a corner cause no one will play with him ... boooo hoooo.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
The question is, would you have got your precious 2nd Amendment ratified in the first place had gatling guns been invented pre-Constitution?

Probably. They could own cannons back in the day (in fact, you still can). A private citizen could even own a warship, hell, there's even a provision in Article 1 Section 8 about letters of marque and reprisal.

Originally posted by Bilder
Just wanted to clarify a few things for the people out there who dont believe citizens should be armed and try to question the intent of the founding fathers who framed the second Amendment.

"They tell us that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us."

I think this quote illustrates exactly the point of the second amendment. To legalize and encourage the arming of colonial-era Americans in the event of British invasion because there was no way to field a professional army large enough to deal with a major British invasion. The second amendment was just a cheap conscription solution ratified by the bastard sons of Britain who didn't want to pay taxes on a penal landgrab.

I don't think Britain is a military threat to anyone, I think the second amendment was a fundamentally based on greed, and that America has gone the way of all Britain's penal colonies, to hell.

If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.
--- Arkansas Supreme Court, Wilson v. State