What the Founding Fathers said about guns

page: 8
65
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Yes, but the people didn't have an Army then, they were the Army. Now there is an Army.

So privately armed citizens no longer protect the country from invasion, therefore they no longer need guns for that purpose.

Try again.


Nope, sorry pal. This issue was gone over back in the day.....and the personal right to keep and bear is the backbone of the whole deal, not what sort of standing armies the state of the feds had. That was all covered....the relationship between the people and the government on this issue.

If anyone hasnt noticed and I think most of us have by now.....we are arguing top to bottom with a bunch that want to get in on the talking but know "JACK SQUAT" about the constitution.....and certainly nothing about the 2nd amendment.

And the 2nds ability to stand in the face of even the best half baked logic just shows what a work of genius it is to this day.




posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


Exactly. I'm sure some people here think all Americans walk around strapped with M-4s, lol.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
[more

Nicely put,Ive said similar things,the Constitiution is the final word its not open to debate and its not negotiable





posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 06:50 AM
link   
The Founding Fathers have to be "rolling in their graves"...especially George Washington who had the dream of the "red cloud" enveloping the country. The founders would probably support citizens who were not criminal or mental having fully automatic as long as they participated in the militia and would accept the risks inherent therein.
edit on 11-1-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 

Precisely and that was the problem the Founders did not trust a "standing army".........



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 





It serves as a deterrence. Look it up.


Could you please elaborate. I do not understand what you want me to look up. Trying to protect yourself from the US military machine with a few guns is as good as a suicide note. Look at WACO for example did guns save them there..No it just made the problem worse. They used heavier weaponry and killed a lot of people.

Times have changed when the constitution was created it was valid. Technology has moved so far now it has become meaningless.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 

Yep...the Branch Davidians supposedly had a M-60 machine gun...and the Feds brought tanks. If the BDs countered with anti-tank guns then the Feds could have just bombed the place (moot point tho as it "caught" on fire).



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


Hey look what happen to the Vietcong.Actualy the BD's had a ma- Duece .50 and held off the first armored vehicle.
edit on 11-1-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by GunzCoty
 


And after that take the in-gang related death and we might be equal with Japan



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by whisperindave
 




What do you think your AK 47 or Bushmaster will do when they DO come knocking on your door, wondering why you just bought five thousand rounds of armor piercing ammo? That's what happened to David Koresh. It's not 1776 anymore! Wake the # up!

So, We The People are no longer in charge around here? I don't recall surrendering.
High capacity magazines are essential as are military rifles ... in the hands of the People. There are plenty of scenareos where such weapons would be needed by "common folks". Civilization is a thin venier over savagery. Any crisis can prove that. The folks in Idaho are now at risk from large packs of wolves ... I'm sure the old six-shooter would do well in that instance.

But, again, I am one who will strongly disagree with you about the need to possess military rifles in defense of our own freedom. You will not be able to change my mind or the minds of other like me. This right is PROOF that We The People are this government. If only the government has these weapons, then we are a lower class than our masters. THAT is the point!

The vast majority of gun owners will never cause harm. The "nuts" will always be present, and laws will not affect their behavior. If not an "assault weapon" with a regular magazine, than a dump truck driven through the playground.

edit on 1/11/2013 by LifeIsPeculiar because: Spelling correction.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Thats the way I look at it. If the military can own such guns so should we.

If we want to use to trade, sell, show or hunt then we should do so under to confinds of the law.

Haven't they taken enough already. They took my privacy, they took my right to a fair trial if they choose, now they want to my right to protect myself the way I see fit.

So how are they going to protect me and then I have to take thier word for it.

People remember 911 right.

Well they didn't protect nothing.

Guns aren't the problem politicians are.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by whisperindave
 





What do you think your AK 47 or Bushmaster will do when they DO come knocking on your door, wondering why you just bought five thousand rounds of armor piercing ammo? That's what happened to David Koresh. It's not 1776 anymore! Wake the # up!



I know what I would do.But if you don;t know mabey you should move to the present day.Ask the Syrians what a few AK-47 will do to start a revolution.David Koresh and his group were a small group.They in no way had the stregnth and numbers of "We The People."

edit on 11-1-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Th3MissingLink
 


So if the military complex is able to manipulate plutonium, I want that right too regardless of my capacity to properly form an organization that is suitable toward handling it.

And if the government has access to a whole array of things, then gosh darn it, I want it too. After all if I can have guns, of any size or of any caliber and all under the notion of "forming a militia" then why the heck stop there?

In fact, why pay taxes for public services? Go a step further, why even live here? Buy land from Greenland, start your own freakin' country and have at it! Make a better United States of Greenland, since apparently this one isn't good enough for all the people out there who think law enforcement and the military just isn't enough to protect us either domestically or from other countries.

O.M.F.G.!

Has anyone seen the forum topic on this very site about all the military projects we fund?????

In-freakin'-sane! We have more guns, more bombs, more nuclear tipped warheads, more configurations of tanks, amored personnel carriers, aircraft, submarines....the list is gigantic.

AND YET...you want to arm yourself with more guns personally just in case the Chinese invade or the Germans decide to launch their hidden U.F.O. fleet on Nebraska to control our corn reserves.




posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


Sorry, this is all about getting your self-important, drum and fife Johnny-get-your-gun rocks off.

Guys, it's over. The War for Independence is O.V.E.R.!!!!!!!!

Don't fall into the trap of comparing the United States to Syria or any other country on earth. We are not. We will not ever be.

All this talk about standing up for your rights to own firepower is gun porn. And trying to maintain those rights is just an attempt to hide your stash of power that doesn't exist.

If you shoot, you feel it. You have something escaping the end of your arm in excess of the speed of sound and depending on the caliber, it could stop a bull elephant.

Last time I checked, I haven't seen a bull elephant except in the zoo or on cable TV. Neither of which are optimal places to start shooting at.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by skyzeagle
 

and all this talk of usurping the US Constitution is called treason.
please, wear your label proudly and move on.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


What the hell are you talking about, treason?

Treason if I voice my opinion about the 2nd Amendment?

There are TWO, count them 2 elements to law: the letter and the spirit.

That's why we have the Supreme Court and a written document. There is no treason in what I've said here. I've just pointed out the obvious which is to say a militia when properly formed must be done so under the suspicion that there is a legitimate threat to the citizenry.

Anything I have heard out of pro-gun ownership advocates has been manufactured in that regard. Backed by vapor. So if anyone has committed treason, there might want to be a broader look around....

However, that is an incredibly glib statement to make. Here is the legal requirement necessary for treason:

READ IT!!! And after you do, figure out if the 2nd Amendment has any correlation to it.

Legal Definition of Treason

Here is a good place to start on really understanding the 2nd Amendment and what it actually says:

(ISSUED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - ref. Wikipedia)

Second Amendment as Interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court


Read them, then reply.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
This video is very informative about some facts thats aren't being put in proper perceptive by MSM. Had Alex Jones kept his cool, I think these were the FBI reports on violent crime he wanted to discuss with Piers Morgan.



The facts just don't seem to add up as to WHY this push to ban semi- automatic weapons since they make up a very small percentage of gun deaths in the US. The "strange" and unanswered guestions in these horrible shootings, and the timing of all this strikes me as very wierd.

The fact is after 9-11 our rights have been eroding, the Constitution all but ignored with The Patriot Act, NDAA, TSA, etc..... but really the people never had a choice, and I guess "tolerated" it, for a variety of reasons.

The banning of certain types of guns is a whole other "ball game"...this is an " In Your Face" attack on "Mr. and Mrs. American" as Diane Fienstein would call us. This is not a RIGHT they can take away under the cover of night, pages of legal documents no one understands, or Executive orders, they need to either come TAKE them, or compell people to turn them in based on the total propaganda we're seeing now on MSM.

I don't own guns, I'm not suited for it, but I absolutely support and respect those that are willing to take a stand on this...Enough is Enough !



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jobeycool
...What happens when Adolf Hitler like madmen are elected?


Newsflash: it already happened, last November.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Bilder
 


All of you Non Americans posting on this thread so are oblivious to the truth. Your guns were taken away and made so restrictive to you years ago that you are not free people, you are subjects to your governments. And some of you in strict gun controlled states while you point out shootings that happen at time in America you fail to also point out the large numbers of rape, bodily assault, and murder by other than guns that are happening right now in your country and neighborhood.

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution is not about having the right to go hunting. Any hungry man will go hunting anywhere in the world with whatever is available. The 2nd Amendment is about Free Citizens of a Democratic Republic being armed in their own homes to prevent a Tyrannical Government from forming and becoming an Evil Monarchy or a Dictatorship. That is the real reason.

When the Colonial English finally sent troops over to establish full taxationable control of the colonies it was common place for garrison troops to stop any person on the street and interrogate them or take any person from their homes for the mere reason of treason to the king and imprison them for interrogation or torture and also to take away all firearms in their possession or home.

The 2nd Amendment is about the citizens of the country being armed, even against our own government if need be.

During WWII it became known after the war that the Japanese did not welcome a full scale invasion onto mainland America because they knew that every American would be armed along with the military.

And as much as some of you dont want to hear this, the reason that Hitler and Chairman Mao of China were able to round up millions of their people for forced labor and extermination is because both men fought hard for Gun Control, all weapons to be registered, then they fought harder for legislation to go take those guns from the citizens. Go ask any surviving Israeli who survived Nazi occupied Europe or any Person of China who survived the reeducation camps.

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting it is about checks and balances. And if they can just erase the 2nd Amendment, what will stop them from erasing and rewriting anything else in the Constitution for the Citizens of America?



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   
From the above referenced Wikipedia article on the U.S.Supreme Court Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

A MODERN interpretation in the 20th Century.

Late 20th century commentary
In the latter half of the 20th century there was considerable debate over whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right or a collective right.[112] The debate centered on whether the prefatory clause (“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”) declared the amendment’s only purpose or merely announced a purpose to introduce the operative clause (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”).
Three basic competing models were offered to interpret the Second Amendment:[113]
The first, known as the "states' rights" or "collective rights" model, was that the Second Amendment did not apply to individuals; rather, it recognized the right of a state to arm its militia.
The second, known as the "sophisticated collective rights model", held that the Second Amendment recognized some limited individual right. However, this individual right could only be exercised by members of a functioning, organized state militia while actively participating in the organized militia’s activities.
The third, known as the "standard model", was that the Second Amendment recognized the personal right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
Under both of the collective rights models, the opening phrase was considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause.[114] These interpretations held that this was a grammar structure that was common during that era[115] and that this grammar dictated that the Second Amendment protected a collective right to firearms to the extent necessary for militia duty.[116]
Under the standard model, the opening phrase was believed to be prefatory or amplifying to the operative clause. The opening phrase was meant as a non-exclusive example—one of many reasons for the amendment.[20] This interpretation was consistent with the position that the Second Amendment protects a modified individual right.[117]
The question of a collective rights versus an individual right was progressively resolved with the 2001 Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson, in the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. Chicago. These rulings upheld the individual rights model when interpreting the Second Amendment. In Heller, the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right.[118] Although the Second Amendment is the only Constitutional amendment with a prefatory clause, such constructions were widely used elsewhere.[119]
Meaning of "well regulated militia"
The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[120] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."[121]
In Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton suggested that well-regulated refers not only to "organizing", "disciplining", and "training" the militia, but also to "arming" the militia:
This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."[48]
A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.[48]
"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia".[48]






top topics



 
65
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join