Do you think our forefathers had current guns in mind when writing the 2nd Amendment?

Status
Not open for further replies.
BT ..... ummm your Prussian, one Friederich Wilhelm von Stueben, did not even land in the Colonies until late Sept. 1777 ...... and did not hit Valley Forge until Feb.'78 ..... he had almost no effect on fighting in the North, which was effectively over before his Blue Book came out and was adopted as the standard of training.

The only major engagement in the North his training might have had an effect on was Monmouth Court House, and it was a draw.

In the South, Irregulars and and Militia carried the rebel cause until mid 1780, when Stueben "trained" and Gates "led" Americans got their heads handed to them at Camden .....

Granted, the defeat at Camden was in part due to failure of militia (but mostly due to Gates' poor tactics- he was a **** poor combat leader, and it would have been better for all concerned had Benedict Arnold killed him in duel sparked by a charge of cowardice after Saratoga, IMO) ..... Gen'l Daniel Morgan manged to use milita very effectively 6 months later at Cowpens .....
 
Better to be a dead Lion fighting for freedom with the sweet taste of blood in your mouth than a slaughtered lamb.

Disarmament whether incrementally or spontaneously leads to obsequiousness.

Disarmament is servitude.

I have heard it said, “In France the Government fears the People, in America the People fear the Government.”

I fear Martial Law, while if the issues are clear cut I think the Military and Law Enforcement would stand with the People, but governments are masters of deceit and propaganda and at creating false flag events, staging an event and then blaming it on someone else to get the desired results, which could sway the Military and Law Enforcement to stand with the government and not the People.

I do not understand my Country-men, anyone who studies history should not trust any government anywhere.
 
I do not understand my Country-men, anyone who studies history should not trust any government anywhere.
Click to expand...

Ah, but by and large, they do not study history these days- they take "Social Studies".
 
Social Studies and Civics and Economics until my Junior year when I finally took a U.S. History class.

To look at the few pages devoted to WWII, one would think that the U.S. was victorious on the shoulders of Rosy the Riveter, the 442nd RCT, and the 332nd Fighter Group. Oh, and Paul Tibbets and Curtis LeMay were war criminals.

It was nauseating.
 
Found that Tench Coxe quote that was mentioned.

The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.
Click to expand...
 
That's the one.

The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible.
Click to expand...
Can this statement possibly be construed to mean anything other than that the militia was intended to be MORE powerful than any army? In fact, since the Founders had a strong distrust of standing armies, this specifically meant that the Founders' intent was for the militia (in other words, the People -- us) to be capable of defeating any standing army. We're not going to do that with single shot two-twos.
 
To look at the few pages devoted to WWII, one would think that the U.S. was victorious on the shoulders of Rosy the Riveter, the 442nd RCT, and the 332nd Fighter Group. Oh, and Paul Tibbets and Curtis LeMay were war criminals.
Click to expand...

Exactly. "Social Studies" .....meh.

Events seem to be taught from a Collectivist view point .... not how individuals made differences in the big picture.... but how this protected class or that favored group helped out in the greater "struggle" that transcended the immediate problems at hand...... WWII "Social Studies" is more about how how these "special" groups advanced their cause than how and why WWII happened in the first place .....

I can guarantee you that more kids today are able to tell you about Crispus Attucks than are able to tell you about Daniel Morgan, Nicholas Herkimer, and Sam Adams, combined.
 
I think the founding fathers wanted the citizens to be able to have the power over a government that no longer represented the interests/rights of the poeple. If that is the case, they would not want Americans to be armed with only muzzle loaders while the powers to be were armed with modern weapons.

The fact is we are a violent culture and that was before the break-up of the family unit. We were the first culture to use biological weapons when we gave blankets to the Indians that we knew were contaminated with small pox and typhoid bacteria, not to mention how jerks like Custer were able to slaugther children and women. However, think how different the school/movie shootings would have turned out if there was a trained citizen there to end that slaughter as we all wish were the case. Maybe that is the answer to a violent culture.

Going back to the original question our forefathers came from countries were the king ruled. Poor "folk" were not allowed to hunt or own land. The rulers and kings wanted absolute power and absolute power comes from the barrel of a gun. IMO anti-gun individuals subconsciously never grew up and want their daddy's to have the power because they are scared to be in control of their own lives. I think Thomas Jefferson said it clearly that "Free man can own firearms, slaves can not". Someone who is afraid to be in control of their life is also not a free man.
 
I hadn't heard about the family break-up thing. Funny, you don't pick up the paper one morning and you miss all sorts of things. Was that what the defense of marriage act was all about? I always thought divorce was a bad thing.

Not all of us came from places that had kings but I guess most did. Of course, we didn't all come at the same time or from the same place either, so it's sort of hard to generalize. Conditions varied greatly, often within the same country. Poor people could indeed own land in most places, although if you were really poor, it was as difficult as it is here. Actually, patterns of land ownership, local systems of government (as well as conventions), and inheritance laws varied so much that you just can't draw much of a reasonable conclusion. Then, at one time or another, things often changed. Things really changed during and after the French Revolution, and some of that even directly influenced laws here in places.

As you know, the French, the Spanish and the English all established lasting colonies in what is now the United States and Canada at just about the same time, withing a couple of years. Yet the differences in styles of government were almost as different as night and day. Then along came the Pilgrims and they were different still. Except for the Pilgrims, they all established colonies that worked pretty much the same as at home, with some differences. The Pilgrims came chiefly so they could run things the way they pleased, which did not translate into any kind of freedom at all, contrary to what you learned in school. But it took a while in all cases before they ceased being Spanish, English or French and started to be Mexican, American or Canadian. It is not a process that gets talked about very much but none of us are European any more, though we may still speak English, Spanish or French. Even there we are different. For an American, someone from England can be a little hard to understand and people that teach Spanish distinguish between American Spanish and Spanish Spanish, if you follow me. I understand some even speak other languages in South America.

The point of all that is that we are way too removed to be influenced by the attitudes of just plain folks in Europe.

Now, about this business of slaves. Do you think they were really afraid to own guns. In fact, some supposedly did and they were allowed to go hunting. It is true, however, there was a fear of a slave revolt and the situation became worse over the years. But let's not talk about slaves because all men are created equal.
 
"A free people ought to be armed." - George Washington

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy." - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." - John Adams

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians." - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." - Noah Webster

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace." - James Madison

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms." - James Madison

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison

"The ultimate authority resides in the people alone." - James Madison

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt

"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

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." - Richard Henry Lee

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker

"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them." - Thomas Paine

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - Joseph Story

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts

" ... for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion." - Alexander Hami
 
BlueTrain, you sure do pick and choose history to suit your narrative...

Feudal Europe: serfs cannot leave the land they were born on without consent of the lord, who typically will not allow it because his lands must be worked. Effective, forced share cropping for generations. Same system in feudal Russia.

Feudal Japan: punishment for a non-samurai bearing a sword is death.

Byzantium: punishment for a civilian bearing a sword in the city is the cutting off of the right hand.

You can find a lot of other examples of these kinds of laws, very easily, but it seems obvious that you can't accept data that would hinder your cheer leading for bigger and more intrusive government.

And you still have not listed one single expansion of federal power that you don't like.
 
Blue train, what is your point? Because Thomas Jefferson had slaves citizens should not have firearms? Your art of deflection is the true sign that your argument is based in fear not facts. You ask hypothetical questions and offer them as actual points when they are really designed to divert from real fact based dialogue.
 
My point here is that I don't think those who wrote the constituion and the declaration of independence really believed everything they wrote. There was a lot of high-sounding language there. Yet ordinary, everyday folks did believe it and that was the start of all the problems we still have. Just the same, I can't imagine it turning out any other way.

There were serious differences among the various factions in this country right away, which immediately led to the rise of political parties. And that was even after they ran off all those who were loyalists. I suppose conflict in inherent in human relationships.

You say I make points based on fear. Convince me that you feel differently about your own ideas. You believe exercising our rights to own arms is necessary because you fear a tyrannical government, fear of assault on the streets (and schools, etc.), home invasions, foreign invasion (presumably from North Korea and from Mexico) and so on and so forth. Convince me otherwise.

Am I the only one picking data to suit his argument?

I've been thinking about those powers you keep bringing up. As it is, I still can't think of any federal powers that worry me. Local powers are another story and because we live locally, if you follow me, we tend to suffer more abuse of government power at the local level than anywhere else. Your land can be condemmed for any number of reasons, one of which is sometimes so someone can build their business there. No, it doesn't happen often but it has.
 
So you don't worry about the Feds trying to regulate marijuana in California by claiming that the LACK of shipping out of California impacts interstate commerce?

You think the Department of Education has improved schools?

You are good with taxpayer support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

You have no concerns at all about governmental creep?

I think you just don't want to have to think about it.
 
BlueTrain said:
I've been thinking about those powers you keep bringing up. As it is, I still can't think of any federal powers that worry me. Local powers are another story and because we live locally, if you follow me, we tend to suffer more abuse of government power at the local level than anywhere else. Your land can be condemmed for any number of reasons, one of which is sometimes so someone can build their business there. No, it doesn't happen often but it has.
Click to expand...

Why should the national government be able to prevent the farmer that lives 500 feet up the road from me from selling me "raw" milk?

I must say, it boggles my mind that someone could not find a single instance of what they personally consider abuse of national government power under current conditions.

The problems of government "local" versus "national", are largely a distinction without a difference. Local governments are no more to be trusted that national level governments. That's why we also have state level constitutions. Those battles should be fought there. Frankly, almost all of the current gun law court cases should be fought based on the state constitutions.

GCA68 and NFA34 should be fought on the national level. Chicago's gun laws are violations of the STATE constitution, not the national one:

Illinois Bill of Rights:
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

We could certainly argue the "police power" bit but there should be no reasonable argument that a complete and total ban, or anything which totally or nearly totally prohibits "bearing" of arms, constitutes infringement.
 
Cowboy's Stadium, Arlington tx. Thousands of lower middle class families put out of their homes without enough compensation to get equivalent homes.

I have become complacent to the misdeeds of the federal government, but these discussions have caused me to look around. Abuses can take place at local and national levels. If states disagree with certain federal laws then funding is withheld till the states cooperate. States do the same thing to local governments. Local governments do it to citizens.
 
BlueTrain said:
My point here is that I don't think those who wrote the constituion and the declaration of independence really believed everything they wrote. There was a lot of high-sounding language there.
Click to expand...

They put real blood and treasure on the line, to back that high-sounding language up. I think that proves they did mean it.

“Many will call me an adventurer – and that I am, only one of a different sort: one of those who risks his skin to prove his platitudes.”-Che Guevara

History is filled with people who put their neck on the line for what they believed in. From various ideologies.

Give me liberty, or give me death, wasn't just high minded rhetoric, it was a call to arms. That call was answered by a few brave men. Many people, then and now, would rather be slaves, or subjects than suffer death, injury, or loss of fortune. That fact will never change, but conversely there have always been those, that would put it all on the line for their ideals, that fact won't change either.
 
Now, about this business of slaves. Do you think they were really afraid to own guns. In fact, some supposedly did and they were allowed to go hunting. It is true, however, there was a fear of a slave revolt and the situation became worse over the years. But let's not talk about slaves because all men are created equal.
Click to expand...

BT, I wonder if maybe you are being tongue-in-cheek...

Jefferson was not commenting on the institution of slavery at all. He was saying that armed men can defend their freedom and rule themselves. disarmed men have no power to rule themselves, they are subjects/slaves, not citizens.

BlueTrain, you sure do pick and choose history to suit your narrative...
Click to expand...

My problem is the lack of any real cohesion to a lot of what BT has said throughout this thread, as well as numerous historical inaccuracies. What exactly is the main argument you are making, BlueTrain? That our founding fathers original intent is irrelevant, and we should interpret the Constitution any way we wish, without taking into account additional commentaries by the men themselves regarding their specific attitudes and beliefs, nor the historical context of the American Revolution? Or that we should discard portions of the Constitution as irrelevant or outdated?


I've been thinking about those powers you keep bringing up. As it is, I still can't think of any federal powers that worry me.
Click to expand...

Come on now, you're just trolling. The War Powers Act? Executive Orders? The Patriot Act? The Federal Reserve System and the lack of a gold/silver standard for our currency, the privatization of war, the war on terror... and many, many other federal powers and actions? None of these worry you... yet you worry about your local mayor "comdemning your land" (I assume you mean eminent domain)? You cannot expect to be taken seriously.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top