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; The way I read the constitution as a whole, is that we must use our goverment to settle issues, and that individuals have right to ...

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 85
Like Tree19Likes

Thread: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    8,805
    The way I read the constitution as a whole, is that we must use our goverment to settle issues, and that individuals have right to arms for defensive purposes, for their own and collective defensive of nation.

    Rebellion against our goverment as proposed by some is not what the 2nd is about, and is a fool hardy notion. Things would have to go way beyond what we can imagine now for this to be a consideration, and we ain't close.
    The continual feeding of this is a very dangerous thing to do.
    To me the civil war made us a stronger nation by bringing all of our states together under one goverment authority.
    If and when we reach a place where the goverment of the union, abide strictly by the constitution on all matters, we would have a simple problem solved. But , as we have seen here and in life, we cannot get everyone to agree on everything.
    Wouldn't it be nice if the laws of CCW were the same across the US?
    Unity under one nation with different liberties and rules in 50 different places is hard to manage.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Senior Member Array Sig35seven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,115
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    The way I read the constitution as a whole, is that we must use our goverment to settle issues, and that individuals have right to arms for defensive purposes, for their own and collective defensive of nation.

    Rebellion against our goverment as proposed by some is not what the 2nd is about, and is a fool hardy notion. Things would have to go way beyond what we can imagine now for this to be a consideration, and we ain't close.
    The continual feeding of this is a very dangerous thing to do.
    To me the civil war made us a stronger nation by bringing all of our states together under one goverment authority.
    If and when we reach a place where the goverment of the union, abide strictly by the constitution on all matters, we would have a simple problem solved. But , as we have seen here and in life, we cannot get everyone to agree on everything.
    Wouldn't it be nice if the laws of CCW were the same across the US?
    Unity under one nation with different liberties and rules in 50 different places is hard to manage.
    Agreed. Makes a lot of sense.
    "Confidence is food for the wise man but liquor for the fool"

  4. #33
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,920
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    The way I read the constitution as a whole, is that we must use our goverment to settle issues, and that individuals have right to arms for defensive purposes, for their own and collective defensive of nation.
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    Rebellion against our goverment as proposed by some is not what the 2nd is about, and is a fool hardy notion. Things would have to go way beyond what we can imagine now for this to be a consideration, and we ain't close.
    I agree, but Jefferson would not have. "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
    time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." ATTRIBUTION: THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787.

    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    To me the civil war made us a stronger nation by bringing all of our states together under one goverment authority.
    If and when we reach a place where the goverment of the union, abide strictly by the constitution on all matters, we would have a simple problem solved. But , as we have seen here and in life, we cannot get everyone to agree on everything.
    I agree, we can't all agree on everything.

    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    Wouldn't it be nice if the laws of CCW were the same across the US?
    Unity under one nation with different liberties and rules in 50 different places is hard to manage.
    Yes and no. It would be nice if the 50 states would get together and agree on a CCW law that was uniform across the country. That, however, is about as likely as the members of this board agreeing on what the founders meant. Failing the states agreeing on a uniform CCW law, or any other law that is not the purview of the Congress, the states have the individual right to enact such legislation as they see fit. While being a PITA, this is as it should be. The farther we put the governed from the government, the more likely we are to get a government that runs wild, abrogates the rights of the governed and makes the governed subjects rather than citizens. The founders wisely recognized this tendency of government and constructed the Constitution to preserve the sovereignty of the states. I would be loathe to remove more powers from the states.
    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.

  5. #34
    Ex Member Array jtmoose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by hudsonvalley
    Lets we forget....those wonderful words didn't really spell out OUR rights but the Governments limitations.....
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm
    Rebellion against our goverment as proposed by some is not what the 2nd is about, and is a fool hardy notion
    ...
    Unity under one nation with different liberties and rules in 50 different places is hard to manage
    I think the union of the states to become a strong political power confused many to beleive the intent was a centralized governments power over it's people. I think the bill of rights was simply a tool to ensure the people that the intentions of the union were for external political power, rather than internal power.

    I don't think gun control is an attempt of the union to have power over the people and I see why people interpret the 2A different than most of us on this forum. I think it is simply a false notion of the public's need to protect itself from itself and an example of how a democracy can easily poke itself in the eyeball.

  6. #35
    Member Array Varmiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Full Time Rv'er
    Posts
    153
    This idiot Judge would do well to read the Federalist Papers. He just might learn something.

    The Federalist Papers were drafted and dispersed among the population. They were plain language to help people understand just what the Constitution was meant to mean, so that it could ultimately become the law of the land.

    Federalist No. 28 by Hamilton

    Federalist No. 29 by Hamilton

    Federalist No 46 by Madison.

    Chris

  7. #36
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,634
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    The way I read the constitution as a whole, is that we must use our goverment to settle issues, and that individuals have right to arms for defensive purposes, for their own and collective defensive of nation.

    Rebellion against our goverment as proposed by some is not what the 2nd is about, and is a fool hardy notion.
    This is precisely what I believe.

    In a neighboring town the whole police department just quit. Some in the community say "no problem," there are plenty of us who carry. That is the context in which I understand 2A. It provides the basis for individuals to have arms for personal defense and for collective defense--- as may happen in that community till the politicians sort things out and hire new officers.

    The rebellion notion is not what was intended and is fool hardy. And even though the founders were themselves rebel who took up arms, they felt that they were creating "a more perfect union" which by its nature would not be tyrannical and thus rebellion would be off the table. They quickly learned that some felt rebellion could be attempted, and GW himself went into the field to put it down. That is the strongest possible evidence of the founders opinion on the matter. It is also an object lesson of what happens to rebels, including the likes of John Brown; however much he may have had a lofty purpose.

  8. #37
    Distinguished Member Array alachner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Costa Rica
    Posts
    1,232
    Well, at least be happy that it is in your Constitution and protected by it. In Costa Rica we don't have such right protected by the Constitution and slowly the Government is taking away our right to own firearms. The worst case I have know is Sweden. They are screwed there!
    "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. #38
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,634
    Quote Originally Posted by Coder View Post
    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.
    It depends on the point in history.

    If by the people not being armed you mean they would not have survived without food, or against thieves, or against Indians, perhaps you are right. But, I know of no instance in which the people being armed --other than through the formal process of enlistment in organized military-- weakened us.

    Two opposite views may be obtained-- one, the well known saying about a rifle behind every blade of grass; the opposite one what was depicted in the comedic movie, The Russians are coming, The Russians are coming.

  10. #39
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    8,805
    Thank God we have what we have. And take note, even though we may not agree on everything, when it comes to preservation of our freedoms and way of life, we quickly circle the wagons, together. This alone tells me that democracy is alive and well.

    As a side note, I would like to say that if the founders were alive today among us they would have advocated using big bore revolvers with heavy bullets as the proper defensive arm! Lol. Carry on friends.

  11. #40
    VIP Member Array chiefjason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC
    Posts
    2,753
    Speaking of the defense of locality or nation. Having citizens arm themselves is helpful for the overall military. One of the issue was making sure that folks knew how to handle a firearm in case they were called up for defense. It's one less thing to train them for. Having a large militia force was considered, but dismissed because of the cost and difficulty of forcing free people to come together to train. The best compromise was to ensure they were free to own firearms and train themselves. In that light, the anti's should shut up about "assault weapons". I have heard various complaints from military sources that recruits don't know as much about guns, hunting, and fighting as they used to. And they are having to spend MORE time training them. I think it's safe to say that was not a problem a generation or so ago. So the 2A has a significant place in the safety of this nation, even if you never plan to bear arms against an enemy yourself.

    Also, I love throwing out the US Militia Code to squash the "only the military should have firearms." It's not the perfect answer, but if your a male between 17 and 45 your part of the unorganized militia.

    § 311. Militia: composition and classes
    How Current is This?
    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
    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"

  12. #41
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    That is absurd. How can they make an assumption that "the forefathers would have allowed restrictions on guns"?
    The Justice seems to read the Constitution the same way most in power do. That the government can do anything that is not explicitly denied them in the Constitution. If they do find that they are denied the power abolish a right then they believe that they may restrict it as long as they do not outright ban it.

    Michael

  13. #42
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,048
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    Exactly what gun control measures did the founders enact? They certainly had the chance...
    Quote Originally Posted by hudsonvalley View Post
    Lets we forget....those wonderful words didn't really spell out OUR rights but the Governments limitations.....
    Quote Originally Posted by alachner View Post
    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!
    Exactly. What 2A clearly does not say is that government can take away citizens' guns. Home defense is but one reason. In DC, it is a damn good one.

    Quote Originally Posted by razor02097 View Post
    "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.
    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.
    +1 to each.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  14. #43
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,634
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    As a side note, I would like to say that if the founders were alive today among us they would have advocated using big bore revolvers with heavy bullets as the proper defensive arm! Lol. Carry on friends.
    Don't you think old Ben Franklin would have preferred high tech? He'd definitely be a Taser dude.


    (key, string, lightening....)

  15. #44
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,920
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Don't you think old Ben Franklin would have preferred high tech? He'd definitely be a Taser dude.


    (key, string, lightening....)
    Hopyard - that's a good one :)
    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.

  16. #45
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    Wouldn't it be nice if the laws of CCW were the same across the US?
    Unity under one nation with different liberties and rules in 50 different places is hard to manage.
    Yes and no. Yes, it would be nice if we could all carry everywhere we wanted to across the country, but what about if they created a CCW law that applied to everyone, that was a bad or restrictive law? You can't tell me that the left wouldn't jump on the bandwagon and try to get federal restrictions in place. A federal CCW law would most likely make things worse for some states, and once the groundwork was layed would always pose the threat of being twisted and manipulated to impact us all negatively.

    THAT is what the founding fathers were trying to prevent... The abuse of power by the government.
    Walk softly ...

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

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, 06:58 PM
  2. My favorite quote from our founding fathers
    By UnklFungus in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 14th, 2010, 10:53 AM
  3. Founding Fathers conceal carry?
    By GBS in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 1st, 2007, 10:27 PM
  4. A letter from the founding fathers
    By JT in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 30th, 2005, 01:07 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.