Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns - Page 2

Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns

This is a discussion on Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Hopyard, this one's for you. The MicMinn County War, or Battle of Athens. Brought to you by the 2A and some fed up veterans. It's ...

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 85
Like Tree19Likes

Thread: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array chiefjason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC
    Posts
    2,838
    Hopyard, this one's for you. The MicMinn County War, or Battle of Athens. Brought to you by the 2A and some fed up veterans. It's one of the successful rebellions.

    The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of political corruption and voter intimidation. The event is sometimes cited by firearms ownership advocates as an example of the value of the Second Amendment in combating tyranny.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMinn_County_War

    Maybe we should send him the Penn and Teller version of what the 2A is.

    I personally find it fascinating that this clown can state the Constitutional ideals are "unwavering" but he is OK with restricting an individual right up to a complete ban. Talk about double speak.
    I prefer to live dangerously free than safely caged!

    "Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun. And you might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome son." Josh Thompson "Way Out Here"


  2. #17
    Senior Member Array hudsonvalley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    lower hudson valley ny
    Posts
    849
    Lets we forget....those wonderful words didn't really spell out OUR rights but the Governments limitations.....
    Tzadik likes this.
    Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
    ---Ronald Reagan

  3. #18
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I'm sorry, but I think that interpretation is way off the mark. George Washington himself, as a sitting president, personally led Federalized troops in suppressing The Whiskey Rebellion. No government, even a brand new one, is going to allow for rebellion by the governed, and our founders put rebellion down right at the start. It was put down a second time 4 score + years later.

    I submit to you that both George Washington and later Lincoln, were much closer to the founding (George being a founder) and George knew a thing or two about what the intent of 2A was--- and he didn't tolerate rebellion.
    I will just let the source sum it up for you....

    Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth. - George Washington

  4. #19
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,107
    After living through the events at Lexington and Concord, I'll bet the Founding Fathers would disagree with gun control, whereby the gov't would control the guns. It didn't work too well for the previous form of gov't.
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know

  5. #20
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,087
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefjason View Post
    Hopyard, this one's for you. The MicMinn County War, or Battle of Athens. Brought to you by the 2A and some fed up veterans. It's one of the successful rebellions.

    The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of political corruption and voter intimidation. The event is sometimes cited by firearms ownership advocates as an example of the value of the Second Amendment in combating tyranny.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMinn_County_War

    Maybe we should send him the Penn and Teller version of what the 2A is.

    I personally find it fascinating that this clown can state the Constitutional ideals are "unwavering" but he is OK with restricting an individual right up to a complete ban. Talk about double speak.
    Interesting. The wiki article doesn't address longer term consequences. Trials, prison sentences, indictments. I would need to research this a bunch before I'm willing to accept that "higher authorities" at the State level didn't punish the rebels. I can see where this incident might not have implicated Federal powers at that particular time in our history.

    Anyway, as I said, that one is interesting but it is also nearly 200 years after the founding and after GW himself put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

  6. #21
    VIP Member Array chiefjason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Interesting. The wiki article doesn't address longer term consequences. Trials, prison sentences, indictments. I would need to research this a bunch before I'm willing to accept that "higher authorities" at the State level didn't punish the rebels. I can see where this incident might not have implicated Federal powers at that particular time in our history.

    Anyway, as I said, that one is interesting but it is also nearly 200 years after the founding and after GW himself put down the Whiskey Rebellion.
    I can't claim to be any sort of expert on it. But I read another article somewhere that lead me to believe the vets did well, legally. And the no good politicians got run out of town. Wish I could find that one. After thinking about this a bit, I'm inclined to believe that although tyranny is most feared from the Federal Gov it is most often practiced on the local level. And that is what made this incident successful. On the flip side, occasionally local politics are such as to lessen issues from the Feds.

    Here's something interesting.

    By morning all violence had stopped. On that very day a governing council was set up and six men were chosen to police the county in the absence of the regular police, who had fled. After the certification of their victory, local GIs changed the method of payment of officials by limiting their salaries to $5,000, replaced county employees who resigned, and scoured out corruption in the government . . . and, yes, they also repaired the jail.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...TAyz2ee9kh31BA

    Another link you might be interested in.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...euKhxm85Teaulg
    I prefer to live dangerously free than safely caged!

    "Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun. And you might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome son." Josh Thompson "Way Out Here"

  7. #22
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I'm sorry, but I think that interpretation is way off the mark. George Washington himself, as a sitting president, personally led Federalized troops in suppressing The Whiskey Rebellion. No government, even a brand new one, is going to allow for rebellion by the governed, and our founders put rebellion down right at the start. It was put down a second time 4 score + years later.

    I submit to you that both George Washington and later Lincoln, were much closer to the founding (George being a founder) and George knew a thing or two about what the intent of 2A was--- and he didn't tolerate rebellion.
    Hopyard - in the whiskey rebellion the Washington administration responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time raising a militia force to suppress the violence. The insurrection collapsed before the arrival of the army; about 20 men were arrested, but all were later acquitted or pardoned.

    Historian Steven Boyd argued that the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion prompted anti-Federalist westerners to finally accept the Constitution, and to seek change by voting for Republicans rather than resisting the government. Federalists, for their part, came to accept that the people could play a greater role in governance. Although Federalists would attempt to restrict speech critical of the government with the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, after the Whiskey Rebellion, says Boyd, Federalists no longer challenged the freedom of assembly and the right to petition. Source http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisk...edirected=true
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  8. #23
    Distinguished Member Array alachner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Costa Rica
    Posts
    1,232
    That is absurd. How can they make an assumption that "the forefathers would have allowed restrictions on guns"? If it's not in the 2nd Amendment then it's just their interpretation and it won't stand in a court of law. I am shocked as to how ridiculous the anti-gun movement can be. Sure, but whenever they will be faced with an intruder in their homes they are going to be WISHING to have a gun to protect themselves. DUMB!
    "If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That's ridiculous... If I have a gun, what in the hell do I have to be paranoid for?" [Clint Smith - Thunder Ranch]

  9. #24
    Distinguished Member Array razor02097's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,974
    "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"
    A well regulated militia is necessary to security, sure.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
    What part of that is confusing? It looks pretty clear to me...

    "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
    I don't see where says anything about a militia having a right to anything... it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    There is something about firing 4,200 thirty millimeter rounds/min that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

  10. #25
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,087
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    Hopyard - in the whiskey rebellion the Washington administration responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time raising a militia force to suppress the violence. The insurrection collapsed before the arrival of the army; about 20 men were arrested, but all were later acquitted or pardoned.

    Historian Steven Boyd argued that the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion prompted anti-Federalist westerners to finally accept the Constitution, and to seek change by voting for Republicans rather than resisting the government. Federalists, for their part, came to accept that the people could play a greater role in governance. Although Federalists would attempt to restrict speech critical of the government with the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, after the Whiskey Rebellion, says Boyd, Federalists no longer challenged the freedom of assembly and the right to petition. Source http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisk...edirected=true

    Whatever your source, there was no Republican party at that point. If the term Republican was used in in any writing of the time it had a completely different meaning from today. From Wiki-- I looked up "Republican Party," It says,
    "Founded by anti-slavery expansion activists in 1854," So, no Republicans involved on either side of the Whiskey Rebellion."

    Anyway, you missed the point. Founders were not willing to tolerate rebellion, and that is clear evidence that whatever 2A meant, it wasn't there to protect any supposed right of the people to rebel. Later The Union was not about to tolerate rebellion either, and didn't.

    You want to rebel, run for office and filibuster on the Senate floor for 8 hours.

  11. #26
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    9,504
    Are "the people" in the 2nd amend different than "the people" in the first? Or any other amendment for that matter. That answers the question for me.
    oneshot likes this.

  12. #27
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,087
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    Are "the people" in the 2nd amend different than "the people" in the first? Or any other amendment for that matter. That answers the question for me.
    That is a great question because first 1A speaks of Congress, then it speaks of "the people" in a very very specific context,

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    The part in bold can be taken to mean that the people have not only a right to assemble peaceably, but no right to assemble in an disorderly non-peaceful manner. Nowhere in our constitution is a right to rebel spelled out or even implied. To the contrary, 1A makes it plain that the people's right is to peaceably assemble and petition for redress.

    Logically, if there were to have been a right of rebellion, it would have been inserted as a continuation of the sentence, thusly ..... to petition for redress .... or to rebel.

    Right now in our community there is a hot issue. People do peaceably assemble, are collecting signatures to seek redress for what some think is a wrong through the recall process, and perhaps the majority of our city council will be tossed out. No one thinks the aggrieved parties have a right to use arms or rebellion in a non-peaceful manner to get their way.

  13. #28
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Whatever your source, there was no Republican party at that point. If the term Republican was used in in any writing of the time it had a completely different meaning from today. From Wiki-- I looked up "Republican Party," It says,
    "Founded by anti-slavery expansion activists in 1854," So, no Republicans involved on either side of the Whiskey Rebellion."

    Anyway, you missed the point. Founders were not willing to tolerate rebellion, and that is clear evidence that whatever 2A meant, it wasn't there to protect any supposed right of the people to rebel. Later The Union was not about to tolerate rebellion either, and didn't.

    You want to rebel, run for office and filibuster on the Senate floor for 8 hours.
    Hopyard - ever heard of the Democratic Republicans? The Democratic-Republican Party was an American political party founded in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", along with many other names. Below is from http://www.wowessays.com/dbase/ad1/avw114.shtml which compares and contrasts the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans.

    Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were some very influential Democratic Republicans. As you can see, there were many differences between the Federalist and Democratic Republican Parties. One party was wealthy, the other poor. Each party had control over a particular part of the nation. They each had their own idea as to how to interpret the Constitution. This split between parties was just the beginning of the American political party system.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  14. #29
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Hopyard - Let me help you with this. The 1st clearly states what Congress cannot do. By implication, if it is not here, and not proscribed by the other parts of the Constitution and BOR, and it falls under the enumerated powers clause, Congress can make a law respecting that. You are right in this case that Congress could make (and has) a law against the people assembling in a riotous or unpeaceful manner. Your reading, as enumerated in your post #27 to this thread, however, applies the powers of the Federal Congress far too broadly IMHO. Your view is that the BOR grants rights to the people (specifically the part of 1A under discussion), but the 1A clearly states that it is placing specific limits on Congress. The rights you seem to think are granted by the Constitution were found by the founders to be "unalienable" and "granted by our Creator." Therefore, it would have made no sense for them to then turn around and say now we are granting these rights to the people; they were protecting the people from the Government. Further, the 1A, without application through the 14A does not address what any of the states can do - which is how the founders wanted it.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  15. #30
    Member
    Array Coder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    446
    The opinion that the founders would have allowed restrictions is doodoo. They said "shall not be infringed". If you want to see if this phrase meant the same thing then as it means to us now (in English), then you can read some history of the time. Hint....it does. Since then, laws have been created and courts have handed down decisions that are un-constitutional by definition. We tolerate this because we (generally speaking) think that the founders were wrong, or not specific enough, and that some restrictions should be in place (mentally ill, etc.)

    There is a misconception out there that the founders were in strict unison on things generally. They weren't. They were all over the place. The idea that one person may have had a different opinion than the rest and therefore we should use that person's opinion is more doodoo.

    It's interesting that while the founders disagreed on many things, one of the things that they were most unified on (and therefore the lack of debate) is gun rights.

    Hopyard, the 2A is not an open ticket for rebellion. The founders, because of hundreds of years of experience, were afraid of government, standing armies, and police. (These fears were shared by the people in England) The founders simply believed that it was essential that "the people" be strong and able to resist a government takeover by any other entity, because that's the only thing they had seen work. For them, armed militias were the way to do this.

    It's not so much that the people will have to rise up and put the government back some day (although conceivable), it's the fact that because the people are strong, none of these other entities will be tempted to do the wrong thing.

    If, during our history, the people were not armed, would our country have survived? Interesting to think about.

    The fact that a justice of the Supreme Court would take this line of reasoning is very disturbing to me specifically because it has to do with the constitution.
    We're all in favor of reducing violent crime. It's just that pro-gunners have a method that is proven effective. Anti-gunners don't.
    ---
    John Moses Browning day is January 24th, 2011

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Random thought about the Founding Fathers
    By paramedic70002 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: October 6th, 2010, 07:58 PM
  2. My favorite quote from our founding fathers
    By UnklFungus in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 14th, 2010, 11:53 AM
  3. Founding Fathers conceal carry?
    By GBS in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 1st, 2007, 11:27 PM
  4. A letter from the founding fathers
    By JT in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 30th, 2005, 02:07 PM

Search tags for this page

any founding fathers against guns
,

constitution amendment not allowed to carry weapons that instill fear

,
founding father's restrictions on second amendemnt
,

founding fathers against guns

,
founding fathers on concealed carry
,
founding fathers second amendment restrictions
,
founding fathers supported public registration of firearms ray clasen
,
how long did the founding father tolerate tyranny before rebeling
,

scalia and ginsburg founding fathers gun restrictions

,
second amendment discussion by the founding fathers
,
what restrictions did the founding fathers place on owning weapons
,
why did the founding fathers dislike concealed carry of firearms.
Click on a term to search for related topics.