Why do the mods here close down good threads but let this idiotic one that has nothing to do with guns stay open?
Did the Founding Fathers intend…
- Thread starter Owen Sparks
- Start date
- Status
DT Guy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,846
So a discussion of whether the founding fathers, the developers of the constitution that is the fundamental (some would say, complete) basis for our actual OWNERSHIP of firearms, is not gun related?
What would be more appropriate for a general discussion topic-this thread isn't about '9mm vs. .45' or 'single action vs. glock', it's actually about the central, core basis for owning ANY gun.
I don't get your objection?
Larry
What would be more appropriate for a general discussion topic-this thread isn't about '9mm vs. .45' or 'single action vs. glock', it's actually about the central, core basis for owning ANY gun.
I don't get your objection?
Larry
I think a better question than "did the founding fathers intend us to have....."
is
"did the founding fathers intend us to have rights eroded by a strong federal government?"
Students of history will note that the outcome of the Civil War made the Federal government as powerful as it is. Its interesting to note that there were no federal gun control measures passed of consequence that we talk about today, until bout 70 years after the Civil War ended. The bill of rights were a guarantee of the protection of individual rights, as the states were afraid of a strong federal government.
This is why its always ridiculous to state that the 2nd amendment isn't an individual right. All the others are.
is
"did the founding fathers intend us to have rights eroded by a strong federal government?"
Students of history will note that the outcome of the Civil War made the Federal government as powerful as it is. Its interesting to note that there were no federal gun control measures passed of consequence that we talk about today, until bout 70 years after the Civil War ended. The bill of rights were a guarantee of the protection of individual rights, as the states were afraid of a strong federal government.
This is why its always ridiculous to state that the 2nd amendment isn't an individual right. All the others are.
I think the even better question, keeping it narrowed to firearms and not expanded to federalism, would be
"Did the founding fathers intend us to be denied....."
The Founding Fathers did not envision the technology but they DID understand the principles involved. A hand written letter differs only in form from a typewritten one, or an e mail or a text message, but the principle is still the same -communication. For that matter at the time of the Revolution
there WERE privately owned cannons-militia artillery units, and private warships-privateers operating under Letters of Marque and Reprisal-which were retained when the Constitution was adopted.
there WERE privately owned cannons-militia artillery units, and private warships-privateers operating under Letters of Marque and Reprisal-which were retained when the Constitution was adopted.
Where does it end guys? As far as the level of destruction an individual should be entrusted with? An Abrams tank? A fully armed F-15? An Aricraft Carrier if one could afford it? His own personal Nuclear Warhead? As much as I'm in agreement about an individual owning ANY military PERSONAL firearm, I think common sense would dictate a limit on what any one person should be able to unleash.
MY Definition of PERSONAL firearm (Maybe not yours): ANY weapon an individual can personally carry and fire himself. With the possible execption of certain fully automatic machine guns (i.e. twin .50 cal. or maybe a Mini-Gun)which would need to be mounted on something stable to fire properly. Such machine guns should be allowed if the individual can prove training in the proper use and care of such a weapon has been completed.
BUT, common sense should be used and the practiclity of such a weapon should be considered before purchasing one. Example: A rancher in Arizona or one of the other border states should be able to own and defend his or her ranch with the use of such a weapon if trained to use it. However, someone living in say St. Louis should use restraint in mounting one of these weapons on his truck and running around town with it. That's just one example I'm sure there are many other examples that could be stated here and I'm sure will be.
In other words we should use common sense when selecting what weapon we need to use to defend ourselves from a given threat. Weapons of Mass Destruction should IMO not be in the hands of ANY individual period. People snap and kill several people before being stopped. Should we all be restricted from owning a personal defense weapon, or even a military firearm? Absolutely not!!! But should we be able to take out an entire city if one of us snaps? Absolutley NOT!!!
MY Definition of PERSONAL firearm (Maybe not yours): ANY weapon an individual can personally carry and fire himself. With the possible execption of certain fully automatic machine guns (i.e. twin .50 cal. or maybe a Mini-Gun)which would need to be mounted on something stable to fire properly. Such machine guns should be allowed if the individual can prove training in the proper use and care of such a weapon has been completed.
BUT, common sense should be used and the practiclity of such a weapon should be considered before purchasing one. Example: A rancher in Arizona or one of the other border states should be able to own and defend his or her ranch with the use of such a weapon if trained to use it. However, someone living in say St. Louis should use restraint in mounting one of these weapons on his truck and running around town with it. That's just one example I'm sure there are many other examples that could be stated here and I'm sure will be.
In other words we should use common sense when selecting what weapon we need to use to defend ourselves from a given threat. Weapons of Mass Destruction should IMO not be in the hands of ANY individual period. People snap and kill several people before being stopped. Should we all be restricted from owning a personal defense weapon, or even a military firearm? Absolutely not!!! But should we be able to take out an entire city if one of us snaps? Absolutley NOT!!!
Last edited:
Common sense may dictate that, but The Constitution doesn't. If you're saying each person should decide for himself what he or she can handle, I agree. If you're saying Congress should impose limits, we should have to amend the Constitution.
"The right of the people,,,shall NOT be infringed."
When you have organized groups of criminally minded people throwing grenades and setting off car bombs just south of this country, murdering and creating mayhem with reckless abandon and eyeing a move north, I do believe the founding fathers intent was crystal effing clear!
When you have organized groups of criminally minded people throwing grenades and setting off car bombs just south of this country, murdering and creating mayhem with reckless abandon and eyeing a move north, I do believe the founding fathers intent was crystal effing clear!
We can buy surplus war birds; try to keep them running!! Used to be an F104 privately owned and he did Airshows! Oil Man.
Helicopters of the gunship variety and lift birds, and all sorts of stuff. Parts are there but you need a few good producing oil wells to support them and pay for parts.
Good luck on getting them armed. I guess we could all become part of some Mexican cartel for they certainly do not have problems acquiring serious weaponry.
There are many elements/arguments to a question/thread and thank god there are; otherwise all answers would be a simple yes or no. BORING!
Helicopters of the gunship variety and lift birds, and all sorts of stuff. Parts are there but you need a few good producing oil wells to support them and pay for parts.
Good luck on getting them armed. I guess we could all become part of some Mexican cartel for they certainly do not have problems acquiring serious weaponry.
There are many elements/arguments to a question/thread and thank god there are; otherwise all answers would be a simple yes or no. BORING!
The way it stands the SC has ruled that 2a prevents the government from infringing on our right to own guns, subject to "reasonable" regulation. What is reasonable is probably the next issue for the SC. Likely the left prefer too hold off on that until they can appoint another liberal justice. Only one justice stood in the way of our losing our gun rights. Judges are supposedly required to rule on the letter of the law... just one more of the many crimes being committed by our law makers. What do you suppose would be our founding fathers' intention about this?
chaplain tom said:
Again, common sense is a dangerous term to throw around.
To you and me it means people should be allowed the means to defend their own lives. To anti-gun people, "common sense" means that all guns should naturally be illegal. So do you really want to live under someone else's "common sense"?
And the question isn't about what you or I think is reasonable. It's about the intentions of the Founders - and there's enough evidence cited in this thread to demonstrate that they weren't opposed to private ownership of artillery and even warships.
Whether it still makes sense or not now, I don't know, but it wasn't mentioned in the Constitution. No restriction was placed on civilian armaments. The Founders could have included a restriction if they had really wanted to - they did not.
Why? I submit that they did not include a restriction because that was their intention.
Economically, very few of us could afford a military aircraft today, fewer still could keep it flying and armed. The number of people who could afford an aircraft carrier and the crew to keep it working is so few that it's a non-issue.
On WMD's, you're right. I don't think people should be able to own them either. But my belief of that isn't based on anything in the Constitution. That is my personal belief. If making that law would require us to exercise the Constitution's flexibility with an Amendment, so be it. At this point, that argument is entirely theoretical anyway.
Last edited:
I compete with a former Swiss citizen now U.S. citizen.
In their home in Switzerland, when he was in his early 20's, they had their grandfathers bolt rifle, his fathers bolt rifle and he and his brothers automatic military rifles.
There is the real second amendment!
In their home in Switzerland, when he was in his early 20's, they had their grandfathers bolt rifle, his fathers bolt rifle and he and his brothers automatic military rifles.
There is the real second amendment!
I don't think you are getting the point. The Founders didn't address the type of weaponry that could be owned for a reason! I see many believe that the Founders "couldn't have envisioned the kinds of arms that would arise", and therefore, we need restrictions on what people can and cannot own. In reality, the lack of addressing what kind of firearms could and couldn't be owned was a future-proof stroke of genius!
I believe the Founders understood that technology would advance in weaponry, they had already seen it during their lifetime. The fact is that they didn't specify, because they believed firearms were a source of protection of one's self AND protection from oppression. It wasn't an issue of whether or not you should be allowed to own a machine gun, it was an issue of whether or not you were allowed to own the kinds of weaponry that would give you a fighting chance against the aforementioned threats. If a criminal attacks you with a knife, should you be allowed only to use a knife for defense? If an army advances on you with RPG's, should a hunting rifle be all you are allowed to fight them off with? You see, the Founders didn't restrict it so that you would have the right to wield whatever was necessary.
Notice, they didn't mandate that everyone own a firearm! They didn't require that your firearm be military grade, either! They founded a free market society. Landowners had better muskets than the poor. WMD's like canons were owned only by the wealthy. This wasn't thought of as unfair, but merely as a sense of balance. Moving forward to today, not everyone can afford the latest military arms, but does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to have them if they can? If the unthinkable ever happened and America was threatened on its own soil, would you be grateful if someone in your community actually had some heavier weaponry to help make a stand, even though all you could afford was an AR or AK?
You see, the problem isn't that weapons have improved over time, the problem is that Americans have grown too smug in their belief that they are untouchable. Ask anyone being oppressed in a war torn country if they wished they had better arms to rise up and match those of their oppressors and I guarantee they would answer in the affirmative. If a foreign nation ever were to invade this one, I would hope that we had not legislated ourselves out of the ability to defend ourselves by whatever arms possible! I think the Founders thought the same way.
If it makes any difference, the founding fathers were setting restrictions on the government, not us. As far as they were concerned we could live, love and die as we saw fit.
Consider if there were no federal government. We would only be beholding to ourselves on the parent/tribal/community/state levels. Should we decide limitations are necessary, we would limit ourselves. If a law is required, we make it at the local or state level. But there are some things that affect all the states as a group... the union.
So enter the federal government... all of the above is none of their business (speech, guns, religion... nadda). All the fed needs be concerned with are those things involving the union, such as free trade across state borders and international affairs. The founding fathers set these limits on them, not on us. Whether we had a musket, rifle or tommy gun was of no concern to them. The states required this arrangement to assure their state sovereignty (each state a separate country, united into a republic), else they could not have agreed to the Constitution.
If we consider the founding fathers' intentions, most of what the feds do is unconstitutional.
Consider if there were no federal government. We would only be beholding to ourselves on the parent/tribal/community/state levels. Should we decide limitations are necessary, we would limit ourselves. If a law is required, we make it at the local or state level. But there are some things that affect all the states as a group... the union.
So enter the federal government... all of the above is none of their business (speech, guns, religion... nadda). All the fed needs be concerned with are those things involving the union, such as free trade across state borders and international affairs. The founding fathers set these limits on them, not on us. Whether we had a musket, rifle or tommy gun was of no concern to them. The states required this arrangement to assure their state sovereignty (each state a separate country, united into a republic), else they could not have agreed to the Constitution.
If we consider the founding fathers' intentions, most of what the feds do is unconstitutional.
If you read the actual writings of the founders, I think it's clear that the framers of the 2A intended that citizens should be armed as an equal to the government.
The wording that they used for the 2A, however, stymied the original intent:
"Arms" have been defined by the courts as something used by an individual against an individual (not infrastructure), so massive-area weapons have been judged as outside the 2A.
"And bear" has been used by the courts to further narrow the definition. No citizen can "bear" a Polaris-submarine or an Abrams tank.
I'm going to paraphrase a poster from THR now and close with this: The original intent was that if Aliens from the planet Glorpton had dispatched their Space-Armada to dispatch you, the founders believed it to be perfectly justifiable that you should be free to dispatch your own personal Space-Armada in your defense, should you be fortunate enough to own one.
So... The original intent has been tempered by the wording of the 2A as time progressed... Genius of the founders? ...Or Maybe God controlled the process more than some would like to contemplate.
Les
The wording that they used for the 2A, however, stymied the original intent:
"Arms" have been defined by the courts as something used by an individual against an individual (not infrastructure), so massive-area weapons have been judged as outside the 2A.
"And bear" has been used by the courts to further narrow the definition. No citizen can "bear" a Polaris-submarine or an Abrams tank.
I'm going to paraphrase a poster from THR now and close with this: The original intent was that if Aliens from the planet Glorpton had dispatched their Space-Armada to dispatch you, the founders believed it to be perfectly justifiable that you should be free to dispatch your own personal Space-Armada in your defense, should you be fortunate enough to own one.
So... The original intent has been tempered by the wording of the 2A as time progressed... Genius of the founders? ...Or Maybe God controlled the process more than some would like to contemplate.
Les
THEN RATIFY A NEW AMENDMENT LIKE THE FOUNDERS INTENDED!!
I'll bet that you won't get ANY argument from 3/4 of the states to ban nukes and bological weapons.
The reason they don't make an amendement to ban nuclear arms from private ownership is because that means they admit that the NFA and GCA are unconsitutional on their face.
But like I said in my first post on this topic... and to understand eveything else about what liberty really means, one must understand this one thing first... We The People are the ones with the power in this country, and We The People are the ones who entrust our representatives with power, not the other way around.
Keep and Bear. Bear is not a restriction on keep.
At the time of the writing of the Constitution people owned cannons. They did not bear them and no on questioned the right to do so.
There two separate rights enumerated in the 2A: the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms.
Kluge, I didn't say I "agreed" with the court's interpretation on using "bear" as a word that narrowed the clear original intent. Just that they "did".
Les
Les
I think we're finally getting to the real essence of the issue here. What is the accepted definition of "Arms"? Many here have used the term "Arms" in recent posts as to mean something used by an individual not by an Army or a Government. I would never argue against ANY FIREARM that can be used by an individual.
When I use the term "common sense" I am referring to the points many of you have made. Since an individual cannot hope to afford to either buy or maintain certain military weapons, the point of having a right to them is kind of a moot point in the first place. Obviously, the practicality of such weapons makes them as one here put it, "a non issue" in the first place. Does the 2nd amendment in it's current form allow for such weapons. Technically...It DOES. Should we have them? That's where I believe our own common sense, (not someone else's) comes into the equation.
Like I have said here in most of my posts...If you can operate it and maintain it and fire it, you SHOULD be able to own and bear it when YOU feel it's needed. That would include weapons like hand held or shoulder fired rocket launchers, bazookas, grendage launchers, fully automatic machine guns and so on and so on.
There are people in our nation right now who could use these types of weapons to defend there little piece of the border just to name one example. Obviously the government is not.
This is probably going to open up another can of worms, but in theory...since the government of the United States is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, WE THE PEOPLE already do own weapons of mass destruction. But we own them as a group and not individually. The problem with that as I see it is that we cannot fully trust those we have placed in charge of them.
I cringe at the though of it, but maybe we do need to re-write the 2nd amendment to clarify whether or not an idividual has the right to certain military weapons. But I am not yet willing to allow the government as is stands now, to even think about touching our Bill of Rights. I'm not willing to "jump out of the frying pan into the fire". I know We the People would have to ratify any changes to the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, but elections over the past 50 years or so have shown me that this could go terribly wrong.
I kinda think we've beat this dead horse enough as we have so many times on other similar threads . There are so many differing views on this topic that we are never going to come to full agreement on this. It's always an interesting thread as it starts out. But it envariably degrades into name calling and worse. We haven't actually come to that this time, but...
When I use the term "common sense" I am referring to the points many of you have made. Since an individual cannot hope to afford to either buy or maintain certain military weapons, the point of having a right to them is kind of a moot point in the first place. Obviously, the practicality of such weapons makes them as one here put it, "a non issue" in the first place. Does the 2nd amendment in it's current form allow for such weapons. Technically...It DOES. Should we have them? That's where I believe our own common sense, (not someone else's) comes into the equation.
Like I have said here in most of my posts...If you can operate it and maintain it and fire it, you SHOULD be able to own and bear it when YOU feel it's needed. That would include weapons like hand held or shoulder fired rocket launchers, bazookas, grendage launchers, fully automatic machine guns and so on and so on.
There are people in our nation right now who could use these types of weapons to defend there little piece of the border just to name one example. Obviously the government is not.
This is probably going to open up another can of worms, but in theory...since the government of the United States is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, WE THE PEOPLE already do own weapons of mass destruction. But we own them as a group and not individually. The problem with that as I see it is that we cannot fully trust those we have placed in charge of them.
I cringe at the though of it, but maybe we do need to re-write the 2nd amendment to clarify whether or not an idividual has the right to certain military weapons. But I am not yet willing to allow the government as is stands now, to even think about touching our Bill of Rights. I'm not willing to "jump out of the frying pan into the fire". I know We the People would have to ratify any changes to the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, but elections over the past 50 years or so have shown me that this could go terribly wrong.
I kinda think we've beat this dead horse enough as we have so many times on other similar threads . There are so many differing views on this topic that we are never going to come to full agreement on this. It's always an interesting thread as it starts out. But it envariably degrades into name calling and worse. We haven't actually come to that this time, but...
Last edited:
I understand, and I wasn't trying to insinuate that you did. Sorry if it came off that way.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
