Did the Fore-Fathers commit terrorism, under the guise of the 2nd Amendent?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

StrongSideArmsInc

New member
Alright, this my first thread I have started, and I have researched through the Archives and seen nothing resent on this topic, so here goes:

Your are sitting in the room with are fore-fathers and the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution is about to be written. I am sure they all look at each other and discussed the language and the thoughts each person had. What do you think it truely means and where do you think their mindsets were, given the time and place.

I will start, as I have thought about it alot lately with the turmoil around the globe.

I feel, knowing what I have learned in history, that the fathers concluded that in order to keep from Oligarchy to occur in this countty, they concurred that weapons had to be legal for the common man.

Our fore-fathers in theroy, did in fact commit certain acts of terromism against Brittian in the onstart of the war. (ie, Boston tea Party, etc.) Of coarse this had to take place in order for us to have such great freedom today. Firearms were insturmental in this effort. So what gives certain people the right to commit such acts, killings, and war to justify how they felt the country should be lead. Its obivious to me that the 2nd Amendment was made to threaten and intimdate any goverment that attempts to override the rights of a person. I do HONESTLY believe that the fathers did write and do the things they did in the best intrest of the common man. In other words, it gives the teeth to the people. Another question of intrest, when does it allow people to revolt against the goverment and use deadly force against them? Now I am not advocating people to take up arms and march, but I do want to know what are thought processes among pro gun advocates on the subject. Brittian labeled our fore-fathers terrorist to some extent, and they did break the law in order to become free. At what point do you justify the use of force against the powers to be? Brittain didn't committ acts of genocide on the Americas. Most of the issues were taxes and lack of religous freedom. I see are rights and freedoms slowly being taken away from us, and was wondering at what point do you feel is enough is enough?
These are really tough questions, and they will generate responses that will be coated with PC answers. I am looking for honest thought, and I would strongly urge people not consider writting anything illegal.
 
They didn't want a standing army. I think part of it was they were too cheap.

The states wanted to protect their own power. Slavery had a lot to do with that.

Most of the founders had an idealize vision of the common man and a low opinion of the real thing.
 
I'm no historian but my impression is that in that era our side were considered rebels against the king, not terrorists. For one thing 'we' did not target innocent civilians. The Boston Tea Party was a crime against property for example.

From my limited understanding the fore fathers were split between those who thought the rights of the individual were paramount and those who felt the rights of the group superseded individual rights. It is obvious who won that argument.
 
Excellent thoughts, much aprreciated. Your right about the force against innocent people, great observation. However, they did kill and fight uniformed military.
 
"Terrorist" is a relatively recent term, which can sometimes be used interchangably with freedom fighter. Best not to get too hung up on expressions like that. Sometimes we get other words mixed up, too. Like we say bomber pilots are brave, while suicide bombers are cowards. I've never understood those fine distinctions.

The colonists were upset about several things before the revolution. There were events that led directly to the war, just as certain events triggered the Civil War but they weren't the underlying causes. In the case of the revolution, it was taxes--without representation. The colonists had virtually no say in London. They did have their own functioning governments already, thirteen of them, in fact. There was already a governing elite, you might say, and people were used to having a say in things. That is, some people.

The taxes were to pay for the last war, the French & Indian War. Wars have to be paid for somehow, sooner or later, and the taxes (Stamp Act, etc.) was how they were going to do it and that's pretty much the only way you can. There were other grievences set forth in the Declaration of Independence. Go read it yourself.

It should be realized that not all colonists were rebels. Those that weren't were called Loyalists. Naturally the side that loses gets called traitors, so there's another word to play with. Many of the Loyalists, which included Flora MacDonald, moved to Canada or back to Britain. I wonder what I would have done? Many, including some Hessians who happened to like the New World, just moved further west. The west really only opened up after Wayne defeated the Indians in Ohio, so that relieved the pressures of those who didn't like the big cities on the east coast or the social and economic climate, which is still the case, more or less.

It is true that the "founding fathers" were not all of one mind. The Alien and Sedition act was one reaction to the excessive liberty being enjoyed by the citizens of the new country while Jefferson was out of the country. However, there was a general feeling that a standing army was a Bad Thing and that a citizen-militia was the proper thing to have instead. One cannot ignore the fact that having a militia was tied to the second admendment. However, our feelings about the militia and the military, standing or otherwise, have changed over the years, although the term militia survived into the 20th century. Unfortunately, the militia, which was there partly to surpress insurrections, was used for exactly that purpose several times. And ultimately, there remains the question, when are a people entitled to violently overthrow the government and who gets to say when something is an insurrection? In the past it has been strikers (those unions!) and tax resisters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top