What DID the Founding Fathers really mean?
- Thread starter PolarFBear
- Start date
PolarFBear
New member
I "kicked" this topic off NOT as "click bait" but as a legitimate attempt to LEARN. It has been rewarding. Even enlightening. The off shoot to the War of 1812 was informative. Thanks for all that have contributed.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
zukiphile said:
Actually I think Stalin did most of the starving part when he did away with the Kulaks and forced collectivization. Small matter though.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
We are getting rather far afield here. As a reminder, the original post was:
Let's get back to the original topic, please, and not wander off into discussions of political movements and philosophies.
Let's get back to the original topic, please, and not wander off into discussions of political movements and philosophies.
With that in mind, the Second Amendment was written to ensure that the people had the ability to resist tyranny by force, if necessary.
If anyone doubts that, ask them just exactly what they think the colonists were doing during the American Revolution.
MoArk Willy
New member
Regardless of where you lie on this discussion there is only one true fact.
The first amendment, as written, is far more dangerous than the second.
Do you believe that the first amendment was written to protect liars and propagandists any more than the second was written to protect criminals?
The first amendment, as written, is far more dangerous than the second.
Do you believe that the first amendment was written to protect liars and propagandists any more than the second was written to protect criminals?
This is a personal opinion, and not found in or supported by anything written in the Constitution including the Bill of Rights.
BUT, just for the sake of argument, look at what that statement implies. Our natural rights only exist up to the level of 1790s technology.
Freedom of the Press would only apply to things hand written or printed using a hand operated printing press (and not a typewriter). Our right to free speech would not cover anything transmitted electronically. SO the government (ANY and all parts) would not need a search warrant to tap your phone, iPad, computer, or anything like that.
No electronically stored record would be protected from search and seizure, they aren't paper... literally ALL your privacy rights are GONE, if you use any modern device.
If you are going to apply a tech time limit "litmus test" to any part of our enumerated rights, you must apply it to ALL our enumerated rights or you are being a hypocrite.
I think that the people who would make a statement like this
Simply didn't think through the non-firearms ramifications of the principle.
If they had, they'd realize how barking STUPID it makes them sound....
The founders made the second amendment short and to the point for a reason
If they want the second amendment gone, why not repeal it? Recent weeks have shown that they don’t merely want to restrict guns, they want guns out of the hands of civilians. They have let it known that the second amendment is their target.
Why not just repeal or change the amendment? They state that most of the country wants it gone.
Let’s do it. Attempt to repeal it. The impeach whoever your going to impeach. Indict whoever you want indicted. Let’s just get on with the stuff the country needs and get all of this BS out of the way.
If they want the second amendment gone, why not repeal it? Recent weeks have shown that they don’t merely want to restrict guns, they want guns out of the hands of civilians. They have let it known that the second amendment is their target.
Why not just repeal or change the amendment? They state that most of the country wants it gone.
Let’s do it. Attempt to repeal it. The impeach whoever your going to impeach. Indict whoever you want indicted. Let’s just get on with the stuff the country needs and get all of this BS out of the way.
First off, if the could, they would, but they can't yet and won't make a direct try until they think they will win.
Next, almost every session of Congress for many years now has had a bill to repeal the 2nd Amendment introduced. It never goes anywhere.
There is a specific process for repealing an amendment, and a bill in congress won't do it.
The process is to approve a new amendment which repeals a previous one, which was what was done to repeal Prohibition. Congress didn't pass a law repealing Prohibition. (doing that is beyond their authority) the NATION passed an amendment through the amendment process and that amendment repealed Prohibition.
there's a reason I'm using amendment so many times. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. Constitutional Amendments are changes to that law, and the process for ratifying an amendment is spelled out in specific detail in the Constitution. Laws passed by Congress are lesser or lower level laws than the Constitution, and since made by Congress they can be unmade by Congress, or the Supreme Court. The Constitution cannot be unmade or changed in any way by Congress or the Supreme Court, it can only be changed through the processes in the Constitution itself, the Amendment process or by a new Constitutional Convention.
The gun banners don't want an up or down vote on the 2nd A, its too risky for them. IF they lost that would effectively settle the matter for decades, possibly generations. They much prefer the current tactics of keeping the 2A in place but rendering it ineffective and essentially meaningless via regulations. They don't even really consider it infringement, or likely more accurately, they simply don't care as long as they can get what they want.
Geezerbiker
New member
Liberals are very fond of saying the majority agrees with them but when it all shakes out, they're lucky to have 30% of the population on their side for most of what they want to do...
Tony
Tony
They way they look at it, the majority of the people who matter do agree with them. The rest of us are a "basket of deplorables" living in flyover country, clinging to our guns and religion (implying that is somehow an undesirable thing...)
However, don't discount having "only" 30% or so of the people behind you. sufficiently motivated 30% of the people can and have changed history.
When the colonies declared Independence only about a third of the people supported revolution. About a third wanted to remain loyal Crown subjects, and the other third just wanted to be left the hell alone to get on with their lives.
Look how that turned out, in the long run...
silvermane_1
New member
At least someones knows the difference between Socialism and Social Welfare.
silvermane_1
New member
They're Leftist there Tony, they hijacked the term "liberal", which is was liberty loving folks like us are.
Owns or controls the means of production. It is the control that makes it socialism. Several socialist governments have controlled the means of production while still allowing private ownership.
As to what the Founders really meant about the people's right to keep and bear arms, I think its pretty clear in what they wrote. If the people had the same arms as the government, being that there are many more people than any force any government could field, then no tyranny through force of arms would be possible.
To express the idea in simple numbers, say the govt sends 100 soldiers to a town of 1,000 to "ensure order" and in that town are 500 people with the same arms as the soldiers, and the will to resist. Even if it was only 300 in the town it would still be a hard fight with the odds against the govt forces.
The idea was that any would be tyrannical govt. would know this, that they were literally outnumbered by the people, who where equally well armed, and that therefore trying to impose their will through force of arms would be a losing proposition in general.
I'm going to guess: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun".