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

Status
Not open for further replies.
That red herring again...

The DHS ammo story keeps popping up. Some guys punched the numbers, though, and when ammo was divided by armed officers, over a several year period, it basically added up to typical training amounts, plus some spare.

The feds do enough things that should worry us, that we don't need to go off on tangents.
 
Don P said:
My thought, and I'll pose it this way, do you think they had any thought as to what the continental congress would do to this country along with the presidents, and judicial branch with the changes that have been made from where we started, or what the founders originally place on paper???
Click to expand...

Franklin appears to have had some thoughts on the subject.

Benjamin Franklin at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, September 17, 1787

... there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.
Click to expand...
 
I simply wish they'd been clearer in their intent ... think how pleasant life would be if the 2A simply said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Crystal clean, no militia clause to allow a debate over their intentions ... I don't think they could have imagined what we can buy over the counter at any gun store today, but I agree that their intention was to allow us to protect ourselves against any government, like the British, which overstepped its bounds ...
 
Thanks Mleak, the 200,000 doesn't sound excessive for a government agency but I assumed 1.6b was in storage, but if it was used for training then that's ok.
 
Bear in mind that DHS includes Customs and Border Protection, ICE, the Secret Service, the US Coast Guard, and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. That adds up to a lot of ammo in annual (or quarterly, or initial, etc) training.
 
I simply wish they'd been clearer in their intent
Click to expand...

Their intent is clear, if you're a student of history. There are tons of writings from various founding fathers that make the intent of the 2A absolutely clear. No one back in the late 1700's would have mistaken what the intent was.

Now with the Liberal's "Living, Breathing Document" theory of the Constitution is there any question on the meaning of the 2A. Why do you think it took over 200 years to get a SCOTUS ruling on the intent of the Individual Right clause in the 2A? It's because only since the 1930's (NFA) has there been a lot of people questioning the intent. Prior to that, it was crystal clear what it meant.
 
Salmoneye said:
Where in the 2nd amendment does it say anything about "guns"?
Click to expand...

Gaerek said:
Haven't read the whole thread, but this is a really ignorant statement.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you should have read the thread before posting, as you seem to believe that I am saying that the 2nd doesn't apply to 'Guns'...

Gaerek said:
5) The obvious intent of the 2nd Amendment referred to weapons, specifically firearms. Reading what the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights had to say on this issue makes it abundantly clear that the 2nd Amendment is about guns.
Click to expand...

It does not apply 'specifically' to anything...It is not 'just' about 'guns'...

Tench Coxe, writing as "the Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 1788:

"The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, 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 16 to 60. 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 other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. 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 ever remain, in the hands of the people."
 
One major problem in this argument is the argument has long been framed by "our" lobbying representatives as 2A is a gift from the founders. That is not what the founders intended for sure. 2A is an acknowledgement of a natural right which can not morally be infringed upon and the establishment of a rule to impede such infringements.

The government who has power to give has power to take and "we" gave them both.
 
Blue Train said:
You'll have to give me some time to think about federal powers that I do not like. Of course, I might throw in some state and local powers, too, just to keep it interesting.

What I keep trying to imply here, which you may have missed, is to get people away from the idea of an armed rebellion. Keep in mind that you won't get anywhere without the support of either the armed forces or the national guard (the militia). Also, I'm trying to dissuade people from thinking that government is a necessary evil. The only time in the past when there was a temporarily successful rebellion, all that happened, government-wise, was the formation of yet another government that was hardly any different from the other one.

On the other hand, Mae West is quoted as saying that when she had to choose between two evils, she liked to pick the one she hadn't tried before. That's about all it would amount to.
Click to expand...

I have to agree that the idea of an armed insurrection is no longer a viable option for restoring or maintaining a constitutional authority. Unless, as you point out, the armed services were on the lay-mans side. The quotes about how the people of America make up the most powerful army in the world are long since outdated. We do not have and have no hope of attaining in any significant numbers the type of weaponry that would be required to win a full-on battle against the armed forces of this nation. If they joined the hypothetical rouge government that we'd be trying to restore to constitutional authority, we'd be AT BEST like the armed rebels of Syria, and far worse off in reality, as they have access to significantly more firepower than American civilians and are facing a foe with exponentially less power.

However, I disagree about government. It is absolutely a necessary evil. Power corrupts. Government is power. Many individuals and certainly the beast as a whole are massively corrupt.
 
We do not have and have no hope of attaining in any significant numbers the type of weaponry that would be required to win a full-on battle against the armed forces of this nation.
Click to expand...
A full-on Wolverines vs. Cuban Soviets scenario is certainly far fetched. However, we're forgetting the deterrent power of an armed citizenry. If the act of carrying out tyrannical edicts carries a significant element of physical risk, those charged with following such orders will be less enthusiastic about following them.

Let's also bear in mind that the vast majority of LEO's and soldiers I've met would leave their posts if their orders began to contravene their oath to uphold the Constitution. A despotic government would quickly find itself understaffed and insulated.
 
Some people seem to have the image of a rag tag force of people with hunting rifles and a few ARs facing tanks and helicopter gun ships.

You can't enforce a police state with fighter jets, tanks, drones, etc. You need boots on the ground. The bullet proof head hasn't been invented yet. Most body armor can't stop high powered rifle bullets at fairly close range.

People with rifles and improvised weapons can't get to the modern military and hurt them? Insurgents get to the high tech modern military all the time in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not to mention politicians. Speaking of politicians, what are all the politicians going to do during a hypothetical USA insurrection, live in tanks and underground bunkers, or play dodge the .308?

No, 100,000,000 firearms in a country where there are 1,500,000 military and Law Enforcement personnel combined total, is a credible threat. Even if only 1% of the 100,000,000 firearms owners took part in insurrection, it would be a bloody mess.

Like I've said before, insurrection, revolution, whatever one wants to call it is unlikely. However, to say that a citizenry armed with high powered rifles, isn't a threat to a tyrannical police state, is absolutely wrong.
 
Let's also bear in mind that the vast majority of LEO's and soldiers I've met would leave their posts if their orders began to contravene their oath to uphold the Constitution. A despotic government would quickly find itself understaffed and insulated.
Click to expand...

I really would like to believe that .... and then I saw video of Americans in uniform disarming Americans in NOLA during the Katrina aftermath.

I would not follow such orders: You have to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything.
 
To say that one person could kill 30 without being taken (assuming that is a reference to the semi-auto, hi cap mag theory), is incorrect to a degree. Had one person been a law abiding, ccw weapon carrier who owned, carried and practiced with their well maintained firearm, wouldn't that put a quick and decisive end to that thought?

The fact that must be included in any movie theater, gun free school zone, or shopping mall shooting spree is, they are target zones for the cowards that go there to shoot because they know them to have low or no potential immediate retaliation.

Ever see a mass slaying at a gun show, FOP convention, airport, court room, city hall, American Legion Post, etc.? What would be the factor that makes mass killer's stay away? Good people with guns.

Bottom line is, the amendment is written broadly for a reason. Arms would include those types of arms relevant to the time.
 
I'm sure now that the NSA was typed, somewhere in DC a computer just kicked on, the hard drive is whirring away and information is being gathered. Fortunately the fiscal cliff will put the employee in charge of reviewing that information out of work.
 
then I saw video of Americans in uniform disarming Americans in NOLA during the Katrina aftermath.
Click to expand...
Many of those uniforms were being worn by hired mercenaries and members of the California Highway Patrol who'd been deputized and brought in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top