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; Originally Posted by Hopyard HG, earlier in this thread QK posted this : "Constitution of Pennsylvania - ratified September 28, 1776 XIII. That the people ...

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 76 to 85 of 85
Like Tree19Likes

Thread: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns

  1. #76
    Ex Member Array hamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    new york
    Posts
    1,290
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    HG, earlier in this thread QK posted this :

    "Constitution of Pennsylvania - ratified September 28, 1776

    XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;"

    Please note the PA tied a right to bear arms to both defense of the individual and to defense of the state. PA, in 1776, did not
    grant its citizens any right of rebellion; and neither does the US Constitution.
    If you have a right to rebellion you don't need to rebel.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #77
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,920
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    HG, earlier in this thread QK posted this :

    "Constitution of Pennsylvania - ratified September 28, 1776

    XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;"

    Please note the PA tied a right to bear arms to both defense of the individual and to defense of the state. PA, in 1776, did not
    grant its citizens any right of rebellion; and neither does the US Constitution.
    Hop - the defense of the state included defense against a run amok federal government.
    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.

  4. #78
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,920
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I got lost after the first few sentences. Look, The Federalist Papers are conversations and editorials; they aren't constitution or law.
    Hop - the federalist papers were three of the founders explanations of their position of a strong federal government to the farmers and other plebiscites of the time. These founders would have been the most likely to have been against personal rights and state rights. They did not get everything their way, but even if they had, they clearly saw the armed populace as a check on the power of the federal government.
    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. #79
    Ex Member Array F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Rocky Mountain High in Colorado
    Posts
    1,706
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I got lost after the first few sentences.
    Well now that explains a LOT!!! I can certainly understand now how you come to some of your opinions, not being able to comprehend simple English and all

    Look, The Federalist Papers are conversations and editorials; they aren't constitution or law.
    No they are not, they are just referenced in oh about 75% of US Supreme Court arguments and amicus(?) briefs filed with the court; so you can't say they are irrelevant either, not by a long damned shot!!

    The question at hand appears to be whether of not the founders (to whatever extent there may have been some generally accepted understanding) viewed 2A as permitting (even sanctioning for a supposed cause of freedom) rebellion. The answer is rather obviously NO. The founders held no such view because if they had, George Washington would have been impeached for using the military to suppress the Whiskey rebellion. Nor was the Whiskey rebellion the first and only rebellion the US government dealt with harshly; but it was the first one after the adoption of our present constitution and the dissolution of The Articles of Confederation.

    You do not seem to comprehend that there more than one contradictory concepts in the pages of the Decoration of Independence and the Constitution. Both are "horses designed by a committee" (I'll explain the reference later if you don't get it) such as "All men being endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" and allowing slavery and counting slaves as 3/5 of a person. The states/people are guaranteed the right/ability to resist an over reaching, tyrannical central government; at the same time the Federal Government is granted the power to quash rebellion; may the best man win.
    The Federalist papers are not that hard to understand; it is especially interesting to read them as point-counter point to the Anti Federalist Papers (only available on line, the Federalists won the debate and wrote the history).

  6. #80
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,632
    Quote Originally Posted by F350 View Post
    The Federalist papers are not that hard to understand; it is especially interesting to read them as point-counter point to the Anti Federalist Papers (only available on line, the Federalists won the debate and wrote the history).
    The history was writ by George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

  7. #81
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,868
    History was written by the Victors.

    In some cases they were free men that did not need or seek "permission" from a Government of any type to act, they just did it.

    In other cases they were the tryrants,dictators and evil men that happened to win.

    Your view of what the victors actually were was totally dependent on whichever side you happen to take a stand on.
    atctimmy likes this.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  8. #82
    Ex Member Array F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Rocky Mountain High in Colorado
    Posts
    1,706
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    The history was writ by George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.
    They made the history others "writ" about it, usually from the vantage point of the victorious. Ever notice how in the old west when the cavalry won it was a victory, when the Indians won at Greasy Grass it was a massacre.


    (Who knows what the battle at Greasy Grass is???)

  9. #83
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,632
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    Hop - the federalist papers were three of the founders explanations of their position of a strong federal government to the farmers and other plebiscites of the time. These founders would have been the most likely to have been against personal rights and state rights. They did not get everything their way, but even if they had, they clearly saw the armed populace as a check on the power of the federal government.
    So let me see if I understand this. You are saying that the Federalist's position was to promote a "strong federal government," whereas at the same time they wanted to weaken that government by allowing for an armed populace which could rebel? Makes sense? Come on now.

    2A has nothing whatsoever to do with the viewpoint too many here express, that is, that 2A somehow
    allows for armed rebellion or contemplated or anticipated such as a lawful act.

    I've already given you the perfect example of how that was seen to not be the case at the earliest hours of our country; through the actions of George Washington himself with suppression of "the westerners" in what is called the Whiskey Rebellion. That George wasn't immediately impeached indicates that his contemporaries, the founders, did not hold the view some are espousing here.

    I find it particularly unsettling that certain people on this board who are sworn officers of the law repeatedly preach that the law allows for rebellion. It does not, and it never did, and no revisionist interpretation of editorial writings can make it so.

    Can anyone seriously imagine a scenario in which our Supremes would rule in favor of that interpretation of 2A? After all, they are themselves part of the establishment against which any rebellion would occur. If you look at it that way, you'd have to assert that The Supremes would consent to their own demise. Ain't gonna happen.

    ADDED a few moments later after some additional quick research.

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

    If you look at this link you find a comment regarding suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion that, "Federalists were relieved that the new government proved capable of overcoming rebellion,"

    It seems most odd to me that some now rely on Federalist writings to assert a non-existent right of rebellion. If anything, as K pointed out, they were for a strong Federal government and viewed others as rabble: "Federalists now ridiculed Republicans as "democrats" (meaning in favor of mob rule) or "Jacobins" (a reference to The Terror in France)."

  10. #84
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,920
    Hop - we have gone over the Whiskey Rebellion before. First of all, Washington's army did not get to the rebels til the rebellion was over. Secondly, of the 20 arrested, all (100%) were acquitted or pardoned.

    The purpose of the whiskey tax was to federalize tax collections to pay off Hamilton's national debt. The rebels viewed this as unconstitutional. The fact that all were acquitted or pardoned seems to indicate that they were right. You put too much faith in Congress to immediately impeach a man who was the most popular president ever remember, many wanted to make Washington king.

    As we have discussed before, the terms "federalist", "republican", and "democrat" all had different meanings at the time of Washington than they do today. Using the words as they were understood at the time leads to a much different understanding. This is why a correct hermeneutic approach to history is so important.

    Whether the current justices in SCOTUS would render a truly constitutional verdict on anything is a crap shoot. SCOTUS has been making unconstitutional rulings and procedural decisions since Marshall was Chief Justice. Jay, a writer of the Federalist Papers, was the last Chief Justice to understand the constitutional role of the Court.

    Lastly, you don't understand how the federalists, who were for a strong federal government, could write what they wrote. While they wanted a strong federal government, they were also realists. They knew that they could not get a constitution ratified that would empower a strong federal government and that compromises would have to be made. The Federalist Papers were both an explanatory document and a sales document. The writers were explaining their vision for government (which was nowhere near the strength of today's federal government) and showing the checks that would keep it in it's place, even if it was stronger than most would like. They realized the Constitution would not approve of a standing army, so they used that as annexample in the Federalist Papers of a government run amuck. To them a standing army was about as likely as us thinking we would employ Martians to man that army.
    OD* likes this.
    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.

  11. #85
    Distinguished Member Array alachner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Costa Rica
    Posts
    1,232
    What I don't understand is this: how can the Supreme Court overturn a decision in court with regards to the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution based only on an assumption made by Historians of a document that was drafted 224 of years ago? Why did they only elaborate their criteria based on the opinion of only 1 of the total 8 Founding Fathers (12.5% vs 87.5%)? This is ridiculous!!!
    "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]

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

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.