Founders and Framers on the People's Natural Right to Keep and Bear Arms

[islandman]

There's no debate, really.

The answers are out there — you just don't like where they lead.

The language of the law is simple.

So simple that the Framers felt it imperative to create an entire branch of government to safeguard and interpret the Constitution.

Let me repeat that: "felt it imperative to create an entire branch of government to safeguard and interpret the Constitution".


Methinks that the Framers knew that the language of the law is anything but simple, and took steps to address issues that may arise in the future.

Perhaps you should have a chat with them and explain why it's so "simple".

 

[bronzeage]

The same could be said for the 1st Amendment. Nobody envisioned telephones or the internet, and look at all the potential for damage that they have. Aside from this internet bullying shite being talked about, you have slander and libel all over them. You have zero need to communicate instantly around the world, especially when denying you that ability would also hamper the proliferation of kiddie porn.

Again, you show your ignorance of the subject. Two shots per minute was considered slow.



A club is an "arm". "Bear arms" means to "bear weapons". The two words are synonymous. Furthermore, the fact that your weapon no longer works, for whatever reason, does not negate your right to have that weapon.



Again with the ignorance. Not only were these were the best firearms that technology could provide at the time, but they were also in common use in the woods and fields every day. If they were so horribly inaccurate, they wouldn't have been able to be relied on to bring down game. These were tools of survival and you can bet that nobody would have bought them if they couldn't be relied on to put food on the table.



Who ever said that the militia part meant nothing? According to the papers written back then, the "militia" was every male over the age of 18. It was a commonly-accepted notion, often written about in papers from the most educated, that every single guy in the US had an obligation to help preserve the Union. As such, they were part of the militia.

It's not what they envisioned? Are you psychic all of a sudden? The Founding Fathers were surrounded by private citizens that had the most advanced weaponry in the world. Flintlock rifles were a common item even though they were considered top-shelf military equipment. The british had them in their armies, and they went to Concord to confiscate the colonist's.

When the war finally broke out, it was private citizens that brought forth their cannons and ships of war to aid the effort.

New at this, aren't you?

 

[Ferrumitzal]

Exactly. Which is why it's past time we sat down like adults and had a conversation. I don't even see what's at all complicated about it.

What's to talk about? We have more restrictions now than they did then. Isn't that enough for you?

and not to downplay cannons too much but in terms of useability and damage (unless you were a brick wall) wasn't the same kind of leagues different from catapults as even tanks are.

Again displaying your lack of knowledge. Cannons were nothing more than giant shotguns and could fire just about anything as a projectile. This included 'grape shot' which were nothing more than balls of iron (or rock). The damage that cannons could inflict on people was simply amazing, and average normal citizens owned cannons without having to go through any crazy government hoops.

I doubt they would need convincing that civilians shouldn't have armed helicopters or ICBMs. And if they would, oh well at least they'd be around to be part of the debate.

Having them around would be neat, but it's important to remember that they supported the idea of a free people having the best weapons of the time. The cannons, ships, and rifles that were bought, owned and used by ordinary citizens were all top-shelf technology at that time, and there's no mention of any framer's decrying their popularity.

To say that the framers wouldn't have wanted xyz is pure suposition. The problem has never been the availability of weapons, but the willingness to use them wrongly.

 

[Byron In Exile]

So simple that the Framers felt it imperative to create an entire branch of government to safeguard and interpret the Constitution.

Let me repeat that: "felt it imperative to create an entire branch of government to safeguard and interpret the Constitution".


Methinks that the Framers knew that the language of the law is anything but simple, and took steps to address issues that may arise in the future.

Perhaps you should have a chat with them and explain why it's so "simple".

The answers are out there.

Go get 'em, tiger.

 

[Phelia]

As much as I love watching eyer go into full angry-chihuahua-mode as armchair intellectuals dissect language from centuries ago, this is just a distraction. The problem is that histrionics and obfuscation (see: this thread) from both sides are preventing any actual progress in responsible gun legislation.

Would someone like to point out where Samuel Adams/Patrick Henry/George Washington/Thomas Jefferson said that we shouldn't require background checks for anyone who wishes to purchase a deadly firearm? Because I have some quotes on that from a less anachronistic source, who seems uniquely qualified to comment given that she is pro-responsible gun ownership AND had a bullet tear through her skull.

Gabrielle Giffords' op-ed in the NYT. It is sensible and very moving. I would ask that you please take a moment to read it if you have not already done so.

Really, what are the rational objections to any of what she's outlined?

My resolution today is that Congress achieve the same. How? Step by step: Enhance enforcement by passing a law making gun trafficking a serious crime with stiff penalties. Make it illegal for all stalkers and all domestic abusers to buy guns. Extend mental health resources into schools and communities, so the dangerously mentally ill find it easier to receive treatment than to buy firearms. And even as we lay the groundwork for expanding background checks, pass strong incentives for states to ensure the background-check system contains the records of the most dangerous and violent among us.

Oh, and thank you for encouraging participation in my Girl Talk thread eyer! So glad to have you as an evangelist

 

[Sean Renaud]

What's to talk about? We have more restrictions now than they did then. Isn't that enough for you?

Nope. And it shouldn't be for you either.

Again displaying your lack of knowledge. Cannons were nothing more than giant shotguns and could fire just about anything as a projectile. This included 'grape shot' which were nothing more than balls of iron (or rock). The damage that cannons could inflict on people was simply amazing, and average normal citizens owned cannons without having to go through any crazy government hoops.

Your lack of knowledge aside, yes you could fuck up a crap ton of people with them. But I'm still not concerned about that if I'm indoors. Of course they have answers for that.

Having them around would be neat, but it's important to remember that they supported the idea of a free people having the best weapons of the time. The cannons, ships, and rifles that were bought, owned and used by ordinary citizens were all top-shelf technology at that time, and there's no mention of any framer's decrying their popularity.

And they didn't live in today's world. What part of that is at all complicated? The top weapons of the day weren't at all similar to the top weapons of today.

To say that the framers wouldn't have wanted xyz is pure suposition. The problem has never been the availability of weapons, but the willingness to use them wrongly.[/QUOTE]

Which is ultimately why what they thought is irrelevant and this conversation should rightly be held between us as adults with no mention of men dead for centuries. But for whatever reason you're afraid to think for yourself.

Yadda yadda, the willingness to use the wrongly, it's nice but in the real world we wouldn't trust anybody with these terms normally. Because the risks of misuse are pretty extreme as well.

To go back to the tired but true, we license people to drive. We don't just let people drive around in big metal boxes and with reason that extends beyond economics.

 

[koalabear]

You have the right to defend yourself.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

As much as I love watching eyer go into full angry-chihuahua-mode as armchair intellectuals dissect language from centuries ago, this is just a distraction.

I disagree on Eyer going into full angry-chihuahua-mode in this thread.

He's more like a crankily constipated Bichon Frisé.

 

[Joeybagadonuts]

You mean like this one...



...right?

not much of a response to very good points made.

 

[Phelia]

I disagree on Eyer going into full angry-chihuahua-mode in this thread.

He's more like a crankily constipated Bichon Frisé.

I can't stay mad at a face like that!

Okay, we'll switch him to the high-fiber kibble.

 

[patient1]

Exactly. Which is why it's past time we sat down like adults and had a conversation. I don't even see what's at all complicated about it.



They weren't psychic. Ultimately they aren't here to speak for themselves but I think it's safe to say they had no idea that we'd be able to wipe out the equivalent of a village in the blink of an eye one day. Warfare throughout all of human history up to the their point had gone from sticks and stones to guns and cannons and not to downplay cannons too much but in terms of useability and damage (unless you were a brick wall) wasn't the same kind of leagues different from catapults as even tanks are.

While I doubt the Founding Fathers would have been huge supporters of modern firearms to begin with, who knows there. Once you wander out small arms. . .I doubt they would need convincing that civilians shouldn't have armed helicopters or ICBMs. And if they would, oh well at least they'd be around to be part of the debate.

I'm all for conversation. It's great to revisit those ideas.

I'm not so sure it's "safe to say they no idea..." After all, black powder made castles obsolete a century before. Artillery was such that it could smash the walls, and a number of castles were destroyed by black powder. There was even a gunpowder plot to blow up the English Parliament that they would have been aware of. Surely they had the knowledge that granting gunpowder to the people meant that it could be turned against even the government itself. They were revolutionaries, after all.

I don't think destroying a village was beyond their imagination, because that could be done with a torch in those days, and for that matter, much of the Iroquois Confederation was put to the torch during the revolution, to say nothing of reprisals in the deep south between rebels and loyalists.

I believe Jefferson understood that power corrupts. That's why there were checks and balances. His idea of a navy was a collection of gunboats for harbor defense. Merchants were allowed to carry cannon for self defense. During the revolution and the war of 1812, we depended on privateers to harm England. After the revolution, we dissolved what little navy we had.

He didn't trust standing peace time armies, for fear they might take over, or start a war of aggression. He believed that only Congress could declare war, and that the states would defend themselves with militias. That's a pretty peaceful and democratic idea. In the War of 1812 New York militia refused to follow up on their victories in Canada, and returned home. So to fight a war you need the support of the people as well as the Congress.

That and an armed citizenry was the best defense against tyranny. Not only did he not believe in standing armies and navies, he didn't believe in banking establishments, paper currencies, and lamented the fact that the Constitution did not prohibit the government from incurring debt.

If it's true to say he didn't envision the power of modern weapons, I venture he didn't envision the scope and power of the modern presidency and central government, either, and might consider greater checks necessary. He believed the power should belong to the people.

 

[islandman]

The answers are out there.

Go get 'em, tiger.

Dunce.

Try this one out, and remember, "language is the law":

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

 

[islandman]

Oh, and thank you for encouraging participation in my Girl Talk thread eyer! So glad to have you as an evangelist

It's nice to see that even misogynists are welcome there.

 

[koalabear]

As much as I love watching eyer go into full angry-chihuahua-mode as armchair intellectuals dissect language from centuries ago, this is just a distraction. The problem is that histrionics and obfuscation (see: this thread) from both sides are preventing any actual progress in responsible gun legislation.

Would someone like to point out where Samuel Adams/Patrick Henry/George Washington/Thomas Jefferson said that we shouldn't require background checks for anyone who wishes to purchase a deadly firearm? Because I have some quotes on that from a less anachronistic source, who seems uniquely qualified to comment given that she is pro-responsible gun ownership AND had a bullet tear through her skull.

Gabrielle Giffords' op-ed in the NYT. It is sensible and very moving. I would ask that you please take a moment to read it if you have not already done so.

Really, what are the rational objections to any of what she's outlined?



Oh, and thank you for encouraging participation in my Girl Talk thread eyer! So glad to have you as an evangelist

The guy that plugged her passed his background check. Those guilty of domestic abuse cannot buy a firearm either.

 

[dan_c00000]

I disagree on Eyer going into full angry-chihuahua-mode in this thread.

He's more like a crankily constipated Bichon Frisé.

I love it when people come fresh out of their political science 101 class filled with knowledge imparted on them by their 8th rate professors at Bob Jones University for Shitheads.

Vette would probably be one of those people if he could 1. read and 2. slim down enough to see his own puny organ.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'm all for conversation. It's great to revisit those ideas.

I'm not so sure it's "safe to say they no idea..." After all, black powder made castles obsolete a century before. Artillery was such that it could smash the walls, and a number of castles were destroyed by black powder. There was even a gunpowder plot to blow up the English Parliament that they would have been aware of. Surely they had the knowledge that granting gunpowder to the people meant that it could be turned against even the government itself. They were revolutionaries, after all.

I don't think destroying a village was beyond their imagination, because that could be done with a torch in those days, and for that matter, much of the Iroquois Confederation was put to the torch during the revolution, to say nothing of reprisals in the deep south between rebels and loyalists.

I believe Jefferson understood that power corrupts. That's why there were checks and balances. His idea of a navy was a collection of gunboats for harbor defense. Merchants were allowed to carry cannon for self defense. During the revolution and the war of 1812, we depended on privateers to harm England. After the revolution, we dissolved what little navy we had.

He didn't trust standing peace time armies, for fear they might take over, or start a war of aggression. He believed that only Congress could declare war, and that the states would defend themselves with militias. That's a pretty peaceful and democratic idea. In the War of 1812 New York militia refused to follow up on their victories in Canada, and returned home. So to fight a war you need the support of the people as well as the Congress.

That and an armed citizenry was the best defense against tyranny. Not only did he not believe in standing armies and navies, he didn't believe in banking establishments, paper currencies, and lamented the fact that the Constitution did not prohibit the government from incurring debt.

If it's true to say he didn't envision the power of modern weapons, I venture he didn't envision the scope and power of the modern presidency and central government, either, and might consider greater checks necessary. He believed the power should belong to the people.

Comparing a torch to the bombs we have today is something like comparing a bow and arrow to an ICBM. You are right, cities had been destroyed by torch and spontaneously caught fire we well. Unless you count Roanoke cities rarely (never to my knowledge but I'm sure someone can come up with an example) simply cease to be and you don't even really need nukes though they are nice. And on the subject of nukes yes you can salt the earth to make some place uninhabitable. . .I don't think that's actually comparible to radiation. Like wise the plan to blow up Parliment was a long drawn out one, it wasn't carried out by a small group of people rapidly. If four guys with horses were a legit threat to the White House the way four guys in Jets or Helicoptors would be today. . .(and that's the White House, not random street.)

The rest of that is well stated but most goes to show that for all his wisdom he didn't see the future. Central banks are an absolute necessity to the modern world. You can't not have them. There are certainly things worse than debt, like not having the things you pay for with the debt. None of this is meant to be an insult to him (and he's just one of many Founders) but just observation. And again ultimately it's nice to know what he thought and why but that's not reason enough alone why we should do something.

Who knows if he would have put more or fewer checks in place. It's hard to tell and frankly right now in history is a poor example. The last five have been crazy but lets say the last fifteen years we've made a decent case that that the lack of tools to compel Congress might have been a major oversight. That however is a worthwhile conversation to have as well.

 

[oggbashan]

The American Revolution had arms and warships supplied by the French.

In WW2, resistance movements in Europe had arms supplied by the Allies.

In Vietnam, the Vietcong had arms supplied by China.

In Afghanistan, against the Russians, they had arms supplied by the USA.

If Afghanistan, against NATO forces, they have arms supplied by neighbouring countries, and bought with drug production.

Iraq didn't have any friends left... But some of their arms had been supplied by NATO and the Russians.

An armed insurrection against a government in modern times is unlikely to succeed IF that government has control of airpower and armoured vehicles and significant popular support if only from a large minority. That is why the Syrian conflict is lasting so long, despite arms being supplied to those against Assad's regime.

In Crimea, Ukraine had/has significant military assets but is outnumbered and outgunned by the Russians, who are supported by the majority of the citizens of the Crimea. Ukraine knows that even with the support of all Ukrainians, it is outgunned by Russia and significant parts of the population of Ukraine will support and aid the Russians.

'A nation divided against itself' not 'cannot stand' but descends into a bloody civil war, no matter how many or how few guns the citizens have.

 

[Phelia]

It's nice to see that even misogynists are welcome there.

Hey now. It's not fair to call eyer a misogynist. He just lives by a different set of rules that are too true and noble for normies like you and I to ever aspire to understand.

For example, when women discuss an insular, somewhat gender-specific topic (like makeup), we are vapid and worthy of derision. When eyer talks about an insular, somewhat gender-specific topic (like football), it's NEWS.

When people express a passing interest in celebrity gossip, it's base and petty. When eyer consistently hoards and inserts himself into gossip and conversations between other posters, it's a CRUSADE for justice.

He's an inspiration. I want him to have his own little television show where we watch him live his life, completely off the grid, with his internet access being delivered via an ethernet cord that's plugged directly into the sun.

The guy that plugged her passed his background check. Those guilty of domestic abuse cannot buy a firearm either.

That doesn't invalidate a single thing she said, you utter fucking moron

 

[koalabear]

That doesn't invalidate a single thing she said, you utter fucking moron

It does too cunt. Read her line of shit. Then read line 11, questions h& i.
http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

 

[oggbashan]

It does too cunt. Read her line of shit. Then read line 11, questions h& i.
http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

The form requires the person completing it to be honest. If they are not, who checks?

People entering the US have been asked the question: Is it your intention to overthrow the government of the United States?

One UK celebrity in the 1950s answered 'Sole purpose of visit' yet was granted entry.

 

[koalabear]

The form requires the person completing it to be honest. If they are not, who checks?

People entering the US have been asked the question: Is it your intention to overthrow the government of the United States?

One UK celebrity in the 1950s answered 'Sole purpose of visit' yet was granted entry.

It is run through NCIS after it is filled out

 

[bronzeage]

The form requires the person completing it to be honest. If they are not, who checks?

People entering the US have been asked the question: Is it your intention to overthrow the government of the United States?

One UK celebrity in the 1950s answered 'Sole purpose of visit' yet was granted entry.

Some jobs required a loyalty examination and loyalty oath, which included the question, "Do you advocate overthrow of the United States Government by violence or subversion?"

Most people circle violence.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No it didn't. Vietnam was a politically decided withdrawal

That's politispeak for got our conventional ass's whipped by a bunch of 3rd world guerrilla fighters. They were so good we still teach a lot of their techniques out at JFK SWCS Ft.Bragg to this very day.

and the two others weren't "wars" - more like "interventions" or "pest control."

I got paperwork from the DOD that says otherwise...and if you want to get technical you have it backwards, Vietnam was never technically a war, OIF/OEF was/is. Anyone who underestimates the tenacity and ferociousness of an armed citizenry defending their own back yard is a fucking moron. Could you imagine anyone trying to occupy the US? Shit...I would be shocked if Russia could take Oakland....

That being said, I agree that the Ukrainians would have been a lot better off with an armed population...

That being said no shit....IED the fuck out of the russians....pop their heads like zits at 400+m etc etc etc. It's amazing what can be accomplished with some house hold chemicals a washing machine timer and a battery. Take the M1 Abrams for example, worlds most advanced tank....home made bomb will turn that bitch inside out like a 12ga to a tuna can.

The Afghan Mujahideen did that in the 1980s thanks to aid from the CIA weapons program called Operation Cyclone.

Exactly...they had weapons....that's the point. If the Ukrainians had weapons Russia would have bodies stacking up quickly.

 

[Sean Renaud]

In fairness we won't know until this shakes down but I think an armed Ukraine could have accomplished pissing off the Russians. So far though people seem to mostly be getting along. I mean seirously an invasion where the the invadee is bringing out bottles of water? Someone if very confused and I think it's me.

 

[islandman]

It is run through NCIS after it is filled out

NICS, you silly twit, not Mark Harmon.