quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

While I have seen on these boards the arguments that the term militia as addressed in the 2nd amendment no longer applies because the national guard has taken the place of the militia and therefore the second amendment needs to be repealed, I thought it would be interesting for everyone to see exactly what the framers of the constitution were thinking.

quote:

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them.”
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot’s Debates, vol. 3 “The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.”

“… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
Thomas Paine

“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
American Statesman, 1788

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison

“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, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.

Now, what I find funny as hell is how the anti gun crowd keeps insisting that private gun ownership was never meant to be a tool against government oppression, when clearly, the men who founded this country, and wrote the constitution and its amendments, clearly thought differently.

When this fact is pointed out, the next argument is always that a bunch of American red necks are going to be no match for the modern American army.

To this argument I have to point out the Afghan rebels fighting the Soviets were, while not a bunch of rednecks, were an irregular force that defeated a modern mechanized army.

There is the fact that, should the US government oppress the American people there is a good chance that the people will have the support of a large number of US military personnel.

However, that is beside the point.

The second amendment is there to 1) provide for a militia to aid in the protection of the United States from invaders, and while the unorganized militia as per law, is just that, unorganized, I would remind you of what Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto said in reference to the Japanese invading the United States:

"An invasion of the United States would be disastrous, since our forces would be under fire by Americans from every bush, rock and tree since the citizens are armed."

And 2) to provide a very real check against the Federal Government going to excess.

Through out its entire history, until the creation of the National Guard, the militia in each state was rarely organized, in point of fact, when called up, the standard procedure until the civil war was, to post notices for the gathering of able bodied men, and place a drum with gold coins on the drumhead.

One joined the militia by taking a gold coin from the drum and that was all there was to it. Officers were appointed by the men themselves through whatever means they decided, from voting to wrestling matches. The overall militia commander was appointed by the state governor.

As for the argument that the National Guard replaced the militias by its establishment, I will again remind all of those believers that according to federal law, a state militia is not subject to being Nationalized by the president without the express consent of the governors of the states, hence the national guard, which is considered an active reserve of the US Military does not qualify since the President can nationalize those troops by consent of congress or executive order.

Now, while the federal government does have the power to regulate what types of firearms a civilian can own, which has been supported by SCOTUS, even to the point of declaring handgun or firearm bans in various cities as unconstitutional and pointing at the 2nd Amendment as the wording, they have supported the limitations on select fire and full auto firearms.

As to the argument that the 2nd Amendment was never meant to allow civilians to own weapons with high ammo capacities, I would have to point to an argument by another user, that by that logic, the first amendment does not protect the freedom of the press in reference to Television and Radio, or any news paper printed by anything other than a hand operated press, since none of those modern mediums for the press did not exist at the time of the writing of the amendments.

The absolute worst and most hypocritical argument against the Democrat and Liberal screams for more gun control or limits on what type or how many guns a person can own falls to their own argument against holding the entire world population of Muslims accountable for the actions of a minority who are terrorists.

If you need it spelled out, in the terms of gun violence and deaths, you wish to punish the 187398000 million gun owners who are law abiding and have done nothing illegal with their guns for the actions of less than 0.00001% of gun owners who do commit crimes as in mass shootings.

OK. Let's spell it out.

1) You think there's a gun crowd and an anti-gun crowd. There's a lot of room in the middle, including the pro-gun and pro-sensible regulation crowd.

2) Where there a lot of people in the 18th century committing mass murders with firearms?

3) If you believe a bunch of US citizens with firearms are any match for the US military, no logic will ever permeate your bizarre fantasy. For starters (let alone firepower and training), military brass is far smarter than to have a Rambo-esque shoot 'em up with a bunch of weekend cowboys. They'd take a far more strategic approach, and it would be largely over before people rang the bells and had a chance to start shooting.

Come on. You aren't stupid. If you want to discuss this, let's have an honest, real discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Did you know the last of the guy in Texas with a brain tumour's victims died in 2001? I think there was a call to extend the statues of limitation on murder over that.

Lovely. Just spiffing.

quote:

There is no statute of limitations on murder.

quote:

California
Felonies: 6 years for murder and other capital offenses; 3 years for lower-level felonies.

quote:

Colorado
Felonies: 10 years for capital offenses including murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, treason, forgery and sexual assault; 3 years for other felonies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackSinMaster

The founding fathers barely reached a meagre consensus. Perhaps you can tell me what it was without looking it up and where they were all from sate wise and their country of birth? Mind you I always thought there were 52 states in America? Do you believe that collective knew all from the beginning and the unfolding, evolving, future?

I myself quote 30 000-40 000 per year, so you are correct in that aspect, and yes that includes suicides and accidents. nods you are fair jef and I respect that

But you throw out percentages as opposed to one human life that matters not.
Five myths about gun violence

quote:

no statute of limitations for murder, manslaughter or serious sex crimes (including those committed against children)...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:



3) If you believe a bunch of US citizens with firearms are any match for the US military, no logic will ever permeate your bizarre fantasy.

Well, arguably, one reading of the spirit of the 2nd is that, far from getting rid of guns, people should be armed up with not just guns, but cannons, tanks, fighter-jets, etc, etc ....

Have you priced a tank or fighter-jet lately?

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou

To Me when the 2nd amemedment was written:

it took 60 men with guns to kill or injure 60 other men and generally the only reason that happened was a declared battle was being waged.

every gun owner used their weapon to bring food home, and protect that home, and all gun owners were on the same page of responsibility of gun ownership.

now u can have one man kill 60 people outright, and injure 500+ with one weapon. With an agenda he didn't bother to tell the people he shot up that he was waging a battle with them.

I don't know why we bother debating this issue again on here, because, I hate to put it in these terms..... but to be blunt, only when enough conservative white people get killed by whites,.......will anything even remotely change.

yes I FULLY know its racist, but its also political truth. until the white male dominated gun lobby starts losing its own members to its own policies, and possibly by the hands of its own members...... will a damn thing change....

(note: I have no idea if the vegas shooter was an NRA member....and not saying he was....)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Actually, the FFs wanted militia NOT to overthrow a tyrannical government, but to prevent a standing army from staging a coup.

The Founders knew, from watching the history of Europe, that military coups by a standing army were a greater threat to a nation that most other nations. So they required us to re-evaluate our army every two years.

But without an army, how would we defend ourselves?

With a locally-based, well-regulated - under the control of local authorities, who answer to national authority - militia. Today, we call this the National Guard.

Article 1, Section 8, line 16 of the Constitution doesn't put that two-year limit on the National Guard militia. Instead, it says, Congress has the right to: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

And make no mistake about it – that militia was to be used to protect our "we the people" government both from foreign armies and from Americans who want to overthrow the government of the United States. Again, line 15 says Congress has the power to: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Nothing in there about taking down the US government.

As a member of a National Guard militia, the 2nd Amendment is more of a civic duty than a personal right.

Again, it was all about defense of the state – not defense against the state.

In fact, during that first gun debate, the state of New Hampshire introduced an amendment that gave the government permission to confiscate guns when citizens “are or have been in Actual Rebellion.” To those early legislators in New Hampshire, the right to bear arms stops as soon as those arms are taken up against our "we the people" government.

Just ask the ancestors of those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion. In 1794, armed Americans took up guns against what they viewed as a tyrannical George Washington administration imposing taxes on whiskey. President Washington called up 13,000 militia men, and personally led the troops to squash the rebellion of armed citizens in Bedford, Pennsylvania. No Army. No right to have guns to overthrow the oppressive US government.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/13786-the-founding-fathers-vs-the-gun-nuts

The Second Amendment was created so that the states could form militias or armies to destroy insurrections or slave rebellions because the federal government had no standing military for a long time. The Founding Fathers were frightened by a standing army, because they feared coups. Without a standing army, the only protection the people and the government had were militias.

The U. S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, states:

“The Congress shall have Power ... To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

Note that there could be a permanent navy, but not a standing army. Note also the Constitution explicitly states what militias do: they make sure the laws are followed, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. This was a lesson learned after Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and The Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794. The Militia Act of 1792 also explicitly directs the president’s use of militias; see The Militia Act of 1792.

The Constitution made sure that there was nothing to fear from the Federal government, because there was no standing army. They feared insurrection and invasions of all sorts. The militias were empowered by the Constitution to protect against these in the absence of a U.S. army. Every single speaker in the U.S. House of Representatives who commented on the Second Amendment before its ratification spoke only about militias.

That being said, the Founding Fathers seemed to think that guns and militia service were good for character building. They certainly didn’t want to ban them. On the contrary, gun ownership and militia membership were required. The aforementioned Militia Act of 1792 stated:

“That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.”

However, the states had many laws regulating guns from the earliest days of the founding of America until the present day. Not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution were prohibited from owning guns. Even Dodge City, Kansas in the 1870’s prohibited weapons from being carried. That law wasn’t very effective.

The U.S. Constitution and subsequent laws provided for militias to protect the government, while regulating guns. Guns were integral to the American experience, as every white male between 18 and 45 was required to own a gun and serve in the militia. Guns could be and were regulated. It is difficult to know with certainty how the Founding Fathers would react to a number of things as they are today, including the fact that we have an incredibly powerful standing army and that we are awash in handguns and weapons that have no relationship to militias.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/what-the-founding-fathers_b_10479314.html

So if you're really concerned about the meaning and intent of the founding fathers, you'd argue for a weaker army -- or even abolishing it.

It would certainly help the national debt. And we could sell off all the current stuff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou

To Me when the 2nd amemedment was written:

it took 60 men with guns to kill or injure 60 other men and generally the only reason that happened was a declared battle was being waged.

every gun owner used their weapon to bring food home, and protect that home, and all gun owners were on the same page of responsibility of gun ownership.

now u can have one man kill 60 people outright, and injure 500+ with one weapon. With an agenda he didn't bother to tell the people he shot up that he was waging a battle with them.

I don't know why we bother debating this issue again on here, because, I hate to put it in these terms..... but to be blunt, only when enough conservative white people get killed by whites,.......will anything even remotely change.

yes I FULLY know its racist, but its also political truth. until the white male dominated gun lobby starts losing its own members to its own policies, and possibly by the hands of its own members...... will a damn thing change....

(note: I have no idea if the vegas shooter was an NRA member....and not saying he was....)

Not a political truth, just racist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou

To Me when the 2nd amemedment was written:

it took 60 men with guns to kill or injure 60 other men and generally the only reason that happened was a declared battle was being waged.

every gun owner used their weapon to bring food home, and protect that home, and all gun owners were on the same page of responsibility of gun ownership.

now u can have one man kill 60 people outright, and injure 500+ with one weapon. With an agenda he didn't bother to tell the people he shot up that he was waging a battle with them.

I don't know why we bother debating this issue again on here, because, I hate to put it in these terms..... but to be blunt, only when enough conservative white people get killed by whites,.......will anything even remotely change.

yes I FULLY know its racist, but its also political truth. until the white male dominated gun lobby starts losing its own members to its own policies, and possibly by the hands of its own members...... will a damn thing change....

(note: I have no idea if the vegas shooter was an NRA member....and not saying he was....)

Not a political truth, just racist.

(read My finished post....)

alright then...... I dare u to step out of that ivory gun turret ur alabaster butt's parked in, and give facts to the contrary.

prove the NRA government lobby isn't a majority or singly white. same with who pays them. Same the NRA's hierarchy.

otherwise, ur just flappin ur gums as usual.

quote:

Whoopi Goldberg said on “The View” earlier this year that she is a proud card-carrying member of the NRA and is an avid supporter of the Second Amendment.

quote:

"How many national rifle association (NRA) members are black?"

"The NRA doesn't keep records of race, so this information is not obtainable..."

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou

To Me when the 2nd amemedment was written:

it took 60 men with guns to kill or injure 60 other men and generally the only reason that happened was a declared battle was being waged.

every gun owner used their weapon to bring food home, and protect that home, and all gun owners were on the same page of responsibility of gun ownership.

now u can have one man kill 60 people outright, and injure 500+ with one weapon. With an agenda he didn't bother to tell the people he shot up that he was waging a battle with them.

I don't know why we bother debating this issue again on here, because, I hate to put it in these terms..... but to be blunt, only when enough conservative white people get killed by whites,.......will anything even remotely change.

yes I FULLY know its racist, but its also political truth. until the white male dominated gun lobby starts losing its own members to its own policies, and possibly by the hands of its own members...... will a damn thing change....

(note: I have no idea if the vegas shooter was an NRA member....and not saying he was....)

Not a political truth, just racist.

(read My finished post....)

alright then...... I dare u to step out of that ivory gun turret ur alabaster butt's parked in, and give facts to the contrary.

prove the NRA government lobby isn't a majority or singly white. same with who pays them. Same the NRA's hierarchy.

otherwise, ur just flappin ur gums as usual.

By your logic BLM (and the school I graduated from) are both racist because
both the membership and the supporters are mainly black.
I don't have to prove anything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackSinMaster

Bamad is one of the most honest people on here. And you are what fukwit?