The Founders on the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms

originally posted by: Leonidas
The wrong combination of President, Congressional Super Majority, Supreme Court and some unfortunate chain of events - real or orchestrated - may be all it takes.

That hypothetical situation can be applied to any circumstance.

Genuine broad based grass roots support is a must.

While I cannot speak for everyone in this thread I would wager that many are like me; involved in local organizations that vocally lobby our politicians and help fund/support various avenues that share our views on the Second Amendment.

Not so much hypothetical as a realistic scenario that could easily play out over the next eight (8) years. As our numbers stay the same, the opposition is growing.

I dont think you get that we are on the same side of this issue. I just dont believe the "2nd Supporters" are enough and as a percentage of the population they are shrinking...and the NRA is a dangerous bedfellow...at best

originally posted by: Leonidas
Not so much hypothetical as a realistic scenario that could easily play out over the next eight (8) years. As our numbers stay the same, the opposition is growing.

I tend to discount some of the numbers as many people I know when a survey question comes up asking if they own firearms they do as I do. Not answer or hang up. I think there is more of us then estimated.

I dont think you get that we are on the same side of this issue. I just dont believe the "2nd Supporters" are enough and as a percentage of the population they are shrinking...and the NRA is a dangerous bedfellow...at best

Honestly, it was hard to tell from your first posts. I do agree with you on the grassroots aspect as that is where all effective politicking has to begin and subsequently by maintained.

a reply to: Leonidas

You do not understand where the bill of rights comes from
and as such are incapable of discussing the issue.

a reply to: Leonidas


Your statement that our numbers are staying the same is not based on reality.

Four months before the current president took office,
Americans began purchasing 1.5 billion rounds of ammunition
per month. This has remained steady to increasing even with
the ABC agencies in the government competing with us.

Additionally in 2001 there were 500,000 instant background checks per month.
Today there are over 2,000,000 per month.

Your logic is flawed as it is based on untruthful assumptions.

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: Leonidas


Your statement that our numbers are staying the same is not based on reality.

Four months before the current president took office,
Americans began purchasing 1.5 billion rounds of ammunition
per month. This has remained steady to increasing even with
the ABC agencies in the government competing with us.

Additionally in 2001 there were 500,000 instant background checks per month.
Today there are over 2,000,000 per month.

Your logic is flawed as it is based on untruthful assumptions.

Yes!

You are right as to the true number of people that will join us when the time comes.
I know this because I was on the inside and had to keep my ideas to myself to keep my job.
That only made me more resolute as well as angry about how PC the world has become.
There was a secret click of people at work that shared the strong feelings of pure hate for what the left has been doing to our nation.
If the left only knew they would poop their collective pants...

a reply to: Indigo5

Good Freaking grief.

Your honestly still debating the "Regulated" thing?

If they, the Founding Fathers wanted restrictions placed on the people, in regards to firearms, why didn't they make such laws then?

Please answer that if you can.
I double dog dare you to answer that.


And then, please answer this.
If the Militia was there to keep the Govt in check, why on God's green earth would the Founders allow that same Govt to restrict the people in the Militias???

I can't wait to read your answer, should you have the nerve to do so.

a reply to: Leonidas

Please research and learn how America can change the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Let me help you with your reading comprehension...

Seems to me it's not my comprehension skills that are the problem--you're just making an incorrect assertion. But I won't go over it again with you, because it's a pointless discussion because your comment has no basis in reality...philosophy, maybe.

The point being that the Founding Fathers were just "human" and prone to error as anyone else, so quit mumbling metaphorically in their presence like they were anything more than rich white dudes out to preserver THEIR way of life.

Ah, yes, the they-were-rich-white-guys-so-they-couldn't-have-a-point-that's-valid-today routine. I think even Laurel and Hardy took that off the list of performances, as it's comedy that isn't funny. If you meant that seriously, I guess my reading comprehension levels need your help again.

Ownership of firearms can and should be defended by modern minds and reasons.

Like your reasonable, modern mind? I agree that ownership should be defended, but in a way that is learned from history, not doomed to repeat it. Show me all of those really great countries/governments in history that banned or extremely limited gun/weapon ownership of its general populace, and I'll show you countries where people lived without a level of freedom that prompted a mass exodus from the world into the United States.

We pro arms, pro second amendment speakers have zeroed
in our talking points here and every response is a bulls-eye.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Let me help you with your reading comprehension...

Seems to me it's not my comprehension skills that are the problem--you're just making an incorrect assertion. But I won't go over it again with you, because it's a pointless discussion because your comment has no basis in reality...philosophy, maybe.

The point being that the Founding Fathers were just "human" and prone to error as anyone else, so quit mumbling metaphorically in their presence like they were anything more than rich white dudes out to preserver THEIR way of life.

Ah, yes, the they-were-rich-white-guys-so-they-couldn't-have-a-point-that's-valid-today routine. I think even Laurel and Hardy took that off the list of performances, as it's comedy that isn't funny. If you meant that seriously, I guess my reading comprehension levels need your help again.

Ownership of firearms can and should be defended by modern minds and reasons.

Like your reasonable, modern mind? I agree that ownership should be defended, but in a way that is learned from history, not doomed to repeat it. Show me all of those really great countries/governments in history that banned or extremely limited gun/weapon ownership of its general populace, and I'll show you countries where people lived without a level of freedom that prompted a mass exodus from the world into the United States.

The training manual that is used by the army today that I still have a copy of is the same one that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff told me to read and make changes to when I was in service?

Your so called top gun guys are reading some of what I had written, so if you what it from the my point of view I'll be glad to explain the intent of what I wrote and why.

There are still many things in the new manual that should be changed.

I will be glad to share that information with the Oath Keepers and others that are sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
a reply to: Indigo5

if the FF were for gun regulation, where are the regulations they wrote?

Free blacks were banned from owning guns. Ditto slaves. Ditto American Indians. Ditto certain religious minorities.
White Heads of households were required to own guns. They even had programs to pay for the guns for poor families that could not afford one.
The federal government confiscated guns from anyone that had not taken the Loyalty Oath to the Federal government during and after the revolution.

They regulated gun ownership from the get-go.

www.nyulawreview.org...
www.volokh.com...

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: NavyDoc
a reply to: Indigo5

if the FF were for gun regulation, where are the regulations they wrote?

Free blacks were banned from owning guns. Ditto slaves. Ditto American Indians. Ditto certain religious minorities.
White Heads of households were required to own guns. They even had programs to pay for the guns for poor families that could not afford one.
The federal government confiscated guns from anyone that had not taken the Loyalty Oath to the Federal government during and after the revolution.

They regulated gun ownership from the get-go.


( You are correct, but you did not say that the regulations were in violation of the U.S. Constitution Justas it was done to the people of Japanese descent during ww2.

And let us not forget the way the blacks were treated with regards to fire arms.


The word infringed seems to be a subjective word by some folks in government as well as on this forum!

www.nyulawreview.org...
www.volokh.com...

originally posted by: Indigo5

www.volokh.com...

Did you read the article you posed here?

Regarding Eugene Volokh’s post below about an NYU L. Rev. article, “The People” of the Second Amendment: Citizenship and the Right To Bear Arms. I just scanned the article, and there appears to be only a single footnote which directly cites any state statutes from before 1800. Note 125, accurately cites standard statutory compilations from Massachusetts and Connecticut for laws against selling firearms to Indians. Although the author is apparently unaware that by 1661 (Connecticut) and 1688 (Massachusetts) the laws were changed to allow gun sales (and even gun carrying in towns) by friendly Indians. The article suffers very severely from its near-exclusive reliance on secondary sources for the pre-1800 period, especially since some of those sources are highly tendentious.

It states that there was one, just ONE foot note for any statues of this.

And this was not law(s) pushed by the FF.

It was STATES acting upon states rights.


I like that you provide things to read, but maybe you should review them first.

The secret agenda of gun confiscation is not spoken of so far.

Registration leads to confiscation that leads to genocide!

It is all about "Control" of people and to control them they must first disarm them!

A properly trained soldier never gives up his weapon...NEVER!

Hitler would never have been able to murder so many if they had fought him with their guns toe to toe.

A sniper is like a living land mine...

It is all about numbers that would act like men and not get on board the FEMA train!

WAKE-UP AMERICA!

a reply to: Indigo5

And you have yet to address this.

If the 2nd amendment was for the Militias, and the Militias are there for when a Govt goes out of control, why would the FF allow that same Govt control of the Militias?

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

And you have yet to address this.

If the 2nd amendment was for the Militias, and the Militias are there for when a Govt goes out of control, why would the FF allow that same Govt control of the Militias?

Militias represented distributed government absent a standing army. The legitimization of distributed military as "government" in the hands of the people (Militia in place of standing Army) was the "bulwark against Tyranny". In the same way government was distributed through the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Your paradigm of People vs. Government fails when you consider the number of times "Militia" were called up to put-down uprisings and rebellions against the "Government". "Militias" WERE government in the hands of the people.

The founders were instituting a military "by the people" vs. standing armies.

Not assembling a multitude of "unregulated" militia's with the aim of constantly challenging government.

The Government called on "militias" to put down and confront just those types of rebellions.

a reply to: Indigo5

Are you serious????

Just because Militias were called up to quash anything means nothing.

It means that the Militias were called up. That is it.

You still don't get it and probably never will. Or.....you are just purposefully not admitting this.

The 2nd amendment was created to give the People the ability to take back the Govt.
This has been discussed repeatedly and even admitted to by just about every Anti-2nd person by commenting that the People could never win against the Govt because of (Insert what ever ridiculous weapon).

With that, why on Earth would the FF allow the Govt to control the very group/people that are supposed to be able to take back the Govt?

The "Executive Branch" , which includes the "Commander and Chief" is not civilian. It is government.

www.google.com... tbnid=oM46NnykTH-rIM%3A&zoom=1&docid=bMTtF2eIaIiP0M&hl=en&ei=JWm0U6bsCcmTqAbG8oKQAg&tbm=isch&ved=0CB8QMygDMAM&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=902&page=1&start=0&nd sp=12

IRL there are two categories of people. Civilian and military.
Some people in the chain of command in the military are civilian.
Some civilian people work for the government and do not work for the military.


Chain of Command

President---Civilian
Secretary of Defense----Civilian
Joint chiefs of staff----military
National Security Council---civilian consultant status.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

And you have yet to address this.

If the 2nd amendment was for the Militias, and the Militias are there for when a Govt goes out of control, why would the FF allow that same Govt control of the Militias?

Militias represented distributed government absent a standing army. The legitimization of distributed military as "government" in the hands of the people (Militia in place of standing Army) was the "bulwark against Tyranny". In the same way government was distributed through the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Your paradigm of People vs. Government fails when you consider the number of times "Militia" were called up to put-down uprisings and rebellions against the "Government". "Militias" WERE government in the hands of the people.

The founders were instituting a military "by the people" vs. standing armies.

Not assembling a multitude of "unregulated" militia's with the aim of constantly challenging government.

The Government called on "militias" to put down and confront just those types of rebellions.

The "Militia" has more then just one role to play as stated in the founding fathers papers.

They serve also as a safeguard to prevent tyranny...

Yes they have been mostly used in support of government, but are always there as a reminder to government that if the folks in government power should ever violate the U.S. Constitution they will remove by force if necessary the tyrants.