What the Founding Fathers said about guns

reply to post by winofiend


The founders made it quite clear in everything they had to say about the right to arms and what the intent was.

There's also the Federalist Papers which detailed the intent quite thoroughly.

Originally posted by jademegjosh
So basically the americans are trigger happy!!!

edit on 10-1-2013 by ADVISOR because: it needed a second line

Yes, the American government and its enforcers are indeed trigger happy. Have you seen what they've been doing across the entire globe?

That's why we the people need to be armed. We are the only ones that can stop them.

Originally posted by graphuto

Originally posted by jademegjosh
I agree you dont need machine guns and assault rifles in ur home.why not just stick with ur small hand gun.Ill tell you why because americans want bigger and better. check out sons of guns on discovery channel,there nuts.some guy went in and asked them to make a zombie gun for crying out loud,and they made it lol. Jesus guys get a grip of this situation...

How are we to defend ourselves against machine guns and assault rifles without them? We ABSOLUTELY need these things.

Originally posted by Sounds_of_Silence
You don't need an assault rifle to go hunting deer, you don't even need a 10 magazine clip to hunt one...but a privately listed company such as Mondanto can have their own private army...

Who said anything about hunting?

IMO, machine guns and assault rifles should have never been made available to the public in the first place. They should have stayed in the military only.

Well actually....guns should have never been invented in the first place.

Originally posted by winofiend

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Oh I love these kinds of threads, my turn!

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"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
American Statesman, 1788

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

edit on 10-1-2013 by ADVISOR because: it was ok...

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

"A militia, when properly formed..."

"when properly formed..."

Look around, do you see the people? Are they formed in any manner close to properly?

Seems it's not so much a properly formed citizenry as a group of self absorbed vigilantes who are making the most noise.

It always comes back to protecting people from the bad guys. Which the police are supposed to do. But everyone thinks of themselves as the pinnacle of what the founding fathers had in mind. I bet you that if it were possible for them to have seen what the populace would become, they would have made it clearer what the intent was... and not simply by then standards.

Properly formed... so many people without restraint.. not so formed and certainly not properly.

Very well said

reply to post by winofiend


How do you define "bad guys" within the context of the discussion?

If it's not in alignment with the original intent of the second Amendment then you are wrong because your definition of bad guys and the framers definition of bad guys are 2 different things. When dealing with the second Amendment (or really about any in the bill of rights) it is all about original intent.

To the framers the bad guys were the government when they stopped following the rules of the game which is the constitution. Your idea of the bad guys (muggers, robbers, assaulters) doesn't even come into play here.

reply to post by Bilder


How are guns going to protect you from your own government. They can kill you these days with the press of a button...

We are becoming less independent.use to be be we saw guns differently it basically kept us alive , since we had to farm and hunt and protect back in the days now we still need them so were not overpowered

Guns are not the Issue... People Are...

Japan
0.06 guns for every 100 people (lowest of nations)
0.07 Gun related Deaths for every 100,000 people

Chile
10.7 Guns for every 100 people (10+ more than Japan)
0.06 Gun related deaths for every 100,000 people (0.01 less than Japan) - (Lowest of all nations)

United States
88.8 Guns for every 100 people (88 times more than Japan, so we should have at the very least 80 gun related deaths for every 100,000 people)

10.2 gun related deaths every 100,000 people (not quite the numbers you will expect if guns were the issue)

El Salvador
5.8 Guns for every 100 people (1/2 of weapons than Chile — 15 times less than the US)
50.36 gun related deaths every 100,000 people (5+ more than in the US)

I also found that in the US 26 % of the population has some kind of mental issues... That to me is the problem we are not addressing.



links to info:

en.wikipedia.org...

www.gunpolicy.org...

www.nimh.nih.gov...

reply to post by jademegjosh

I agree you dont need machine guns and assault rifles in ur home.why not just stick with ur small hand gun

It is not necessary to drive high performance racing cars. It is fun to do so, and it is certainly a croud pleaser. I like to possess and shoot rifles of all sorts. It is fun to do, and pleases me very much. Why should one group of people be allowed to persue a hobby, but not another? Americans are FREE. We can choose. That is Liberty. If only the government had weapons, we would be pawns.

The only question that needs to be asked about fire arms being taken away by the government....What happens when Adolf Hitler like madmen are elected?Your all dead is what happens from mass murder.It happened before it can happen again.

Maybe we all got it the wrong way round. They are doing all this anti-gun malarky to get you all hotted up and out buying more guns etc.

Throw in a few loud mouths like AJ and Piers to really get it all going.

Then at some point in the future they can use the fact that the population has become so heavily armed as an excuse to introduce some really draconian laws, even authorising use of force against you. Maybe they want you all to keep mentioning how you want to be armed so you can overthrow corrupt governments.

Like the police state you fear actually coming about because of the guns.

Maybe the thing to do is just ignore them and carry on as you were, if there is no fuss surely they can't do anything.

Originally posted by Riposte

Yes, the American government and its enforcers are indeed trigger happy. Have you seen what they've been doing across the entire globe?

That's why we the people need to be armed. We are the only ones that can stop them.

So why haven't you? Genuine question.

reply to post by woogleuk

So why haven't you? Genuine question.

Because we still think there is hope for the ballot box.

reply to post by Bilder

nothing has really changed since the declaration of independence

Nothing has changed except that there is no risk of foreign invasion to be worried about and that gun technology has advanced beyond muskets.

I have no problem at all with people owning guns for protection. I do think that laws should be allowed to adjust based on technology advancements, but not as a reaction to isolated incidents or widespread media coverage with political bias. That is another thing that has changed slightly since the declaration.

How do we know the founding fathers as a group drank a lot? Well, for one thing, we have records of their imbibing. In 1787, two days before they signed off on the Constitution, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention partied at a tavern. According to the bill preserved from the evening, they drank 54 bottles of Madeira, 60 bottles of claret, eight of whiskey, 22 of porter, eight of hard cider, 12 of beer and seven bowls of alcoholic punch.

They sure had a good time, tahats fur sure! I wonder how it would have been if they were all tea drinkers only...no booze?

"To the end of John Adams' life, a large tankard of hard cider was his morning draught before breakfast."

Source: www.huffingtonpost.com...

The 2nd amendment is designed to ensure that the American people can defend themselves against a professional military.

It is not designed to ensure that the American people be able to go to the gun show, the target range or duck hunting.

I think there should be a military grade assault rifle in every home in the US, as there is in Switzerland.

reply to post by ipsedixit

Originally posted by ipsedixit
The 2nd amendment is designed to ensure that the American people can defend themselves against a professional military.

In that case then, arm every one with modern automatic weapons and at least the basic 16 weeks of initial combat training. Because that is a start, for such will not be very likely, especially given modern combat veterans. A civilian will in my opinion, need that and much more to stand against a professional soldier in today's context.

If I read that right, this is my understanding.

reply to post by ADVISOR


LOL, I am sorry but that comment was "Golden"!

MY Grandfather just received a notice from NRA that states (excerpts):

"And please , no matter how difficult this battle becomes in the coming months ahead, always remember that 'you' are the bedrock that makes this country what it is. 'You are the strength of America, not Barack Obama.

" Freedom is now on the edge of a precipice, and there will be times in the months and years ahead , when the future of our gun rights looks very much in doubt. But failure is not an option, because if we let Obama prevail, the second Amendment will be in shreds four years from now. And the only way to meet the challenge ahead is to face it head on_and 'fight'. We will never submit. We will never succumb. We will never surrender."

Reply to post by antar

If the government does act against it's citizens, what good will an assault rifle do if for instance there are just drones in the skies dropping bombs............we really are circling the drain here


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com