Original Intent; What the Founding Fathers really Said About Guns

[WAGCEVP]

Original Intent; What the Founding Fathers really Said About Guns
Page 25, July 20 2003 issue, shotgun news

A pamphlet:
Clayton E Cramer has gone back to the original sources to find out what Founding Fathers actually said and wrote about the right to keep and bear arms. Each Quote is foonoted and Cramer includes a useful list of websites that will let you read these rallying cries of freedom in their original context.



*Looks like something good to pass out at gunshows, rallys etc. *

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have ocassion for them" Thomas Jefferson

 

[CGofMP]

where do we get/view said document sir?

Charles

 

[WAGCEVP]

Sir? That's WOMEN Against Gun Control


Ya buy 'em

According to SGN:
Order from: Primedia Outdoors
PO Box 2676
Baxter MN
56425-2676
and there's a toll free number, if ya want that.... send me a PM.



One Loves To Possess Arms, Though They Never Hope to Have Occasion For Them" Thomas Jefferson

 

[CGofMP]

Madam(s) My deepest and most sincere apologies....

I really should know better - especially on this forum.

thanks for the info!

Charles

 

[Bostonterrier97]

We all know the Original Intent of the founding fathers...and most of our politicians as well as supreme court justices know the original intent..

No education is needed on their part..they have their agenda, and they are determined to shred the Bill of Rights.

And they are determined for the most part in implementing a form of socialism and a tyrannical Federal Government, through incrementalism.

Almost every single law passed stays on the books (the 1994 AWB with a sunset clause being an exception), almost every supreme court ruling is NEVER reversed.

Very few laws are ever repealed.

As younger people grow up and take our place, they are ignorant of the amount of freedom that has been lost over the years.

Because they are ignorant, they are complacent.

By the time they hit middle age and finally figure it out, they are too old or almost too old to do anything about it. And they end up dealing with a younger generation that refuses to listen to them.

Those are the facts

 

[Glock Glockler]

We all know the Original Intent of the founding fathers

Oh, do you? There were 55 delegates at the convention in Philadelphia, can any of us honestly say we know what was going through all of their heads?

Tell me, what did the founders think about freedom of religion? What about Dr. Benjamin Rush, aka the Father of Public Education under the Constitution (hmmm, I didn't know Article I, sec. 8 gave the Feds any authority in that). Here's what he said:

"The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty"

"Let the children who are sent to those schools be taught to read and write - - - (and a)bove all, let both sexes be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education" about his plan for public education in America

"It will be necessary to connect all these (academic) branches of education with regular instruction in the Christian religion."

Where's the poster formerly known as Lendringser, he'd love to chill with this guy? Seriously, just because someone is a 'founder" is no reason to assume things about them or reserve to them unwaranted status that they're not due.

At the end of the day, explaing to people what the founder's intentions were doesn't carry mush weight. They're ont interested in what a bunch of dead slave owning White guys though 200yrs ago, they're interested in improving their lot in life here and now. We must persuade them with the logic of our position and any emotional propaganda we can muster

 

[WAGCEVP]

no problem, Charles, I was jes messin witcha


Meant to give prices:
1 copy - 1.00
10 " - 7.50
50 " - 25.00
100 " - 45.00

 

[WAGCEVP]

jeeeez, guys, I didn't mean to start a war here


it was FYI only. If ya want 'em , fine... If not, that's kewl, too.

 

[telewinz]

Our Founding fathers also said....

Slavery is legal

Only men with property may vote

Women with or without property cannot vote

You may not settle west of the Ohio River (Indian Lands)

We of course should abide by ALL their "golden words" of wisdom.

 

[Orbital-Burn]

I only got one thing to say about what the founding fathers ment:

 

[Mark Tyson]

telewinz

The founders also set in motion the process whereby slavery was eventually abolished by establishing the date that importation of new slaves could be banned.

There is nothing in the constitution that prevented women from voting, and in fact in some areas woman did vote in the first elections.

The property requirement was only sporadically enforced.

All that being said, I agree with your general sentiment that the republic should adapt to new times and evolving ethical standards, while at the same time preserving the essence of liberty that was enshrined in the constitution.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

The agreed to "Original Intent" is - to coin a phrase - self-evident.

Had the people that founded this country wished for the fruitcake revisionist version of the 2nd Amendment, they coulda/woulda/shoulda have had it.

They could read, write, and speak in English. Ergo, if they had meant to establish laws against the private ownership of the "Brown Bess" (or any other weapon) - the state of the art weapon of its time - they would have done so.

There isn't one place in the Constitution, or its various and sundry amendments, that filthy leftists dispute the meaning of "the people", by arguing that what is really meant is "the state(s)". Don't believe me? Listen to a leftist bleat about the 1st Amendment sometime.

In other words, had the 2nd A been a collective right, they (the founders) would have taken all other weapons, except for the rusty shotguns and squirrel rifles, away from the PEOPLE* and placed them in National Guard Armorys.

Then again, the founders of this country weren't a bunch of sniveling-knee-jerk-commie-pinko-bedwetting idiots, as are our good friends the antis. And of course there is that little nagging problem that the National Guard wasn't in existence for another 120 years+/- after ratification of the BOR. Details, details, details...


*From another thread (abridged):

The High Road > Social Situations > Legal and Political > Official sponsored anti gun propaganda???




brookstexas
Member

Registered: May 2003
Location:
Posts: 86
Official sponsered anti gun propaganda???
This is from their website www.constitutioncenter.org search for "guns".
This is the new tourist center much touted in the press. A writer named Linda Monk has the job of translating the Constitution for those who can't read evidently-

"The American Revolution was fought by minutemen, ready with their guns at a moment’s notice. Early Americans believed that a militia, composed of citizen-soldiers, was a better safeguard of their liberties than a standing or permanent army. Today the militia consists of the National Guard, drilling in state units. Does the Second Amendment protect only the right of the states to have militias, or does it give individuals a right to bear arms for self-defense as well as national defense? That question is at the heart of the debate over the Second Amendment and gun control."

This is so far from historical truth it is just propaganda, please write and complain. By the way, where is the NRA????
Spike

--
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be lead to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
--H. L. Mencken

Don, what do you and Dick think about doing that Mencken thing?
-G.W. Bush


Duncan Idaho
Member

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: The early years of WWIII
Posts: 69

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the Second Amendment protect only the right of the states to have militias, or does it give individuals a right to bear arms for self-defense as well as national defense?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It supports the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The founders said "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."

Ascribing the right being discussed to THE PEOPLE, rather than to the state(s), just as they did in amendments 1, (2), 4, 5, 9, and as they implied in amendments 3, 6, 7, & 8.

Had they wished to ascribe the right to both the state(s) and the people, they could have done so as they did in Amendment 10.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, as anyone can plainly see, the founders possessed sufficient skill with the English language to clearly assign rights to individuals as well as states. In the case of the 2nd Amendment, they clearly chose the former.

One other thing. If the modern National Guard did indeed mimic the Minutemen, or the founder's vision of citizen-soldiers, then said National Guardsmen/women would secure their M-16s, M9s, M249s, etc... at home, or at their place of work, or on their persons, as the Minutemen did.

Linda Monk translator? Leftist revisionist blissninny is nearer the mark.

God I hate liberals.

 

[Majic]

The founders also set in motion the process whereby slavery was eventually abolished by establishing the date that importation of new slaves could be banned.

That doesn't lead to abolishment, as you already have a viable self- replicating system all ready in place. So you import no new slaves, you just breed the slaves already in the system to fill the needs.

 

[Kreed]

Only men with property may vote

With the installation of the ever-burgeoning welfare state, this would seem to be an old idea whose time has come again.

As far as the RKBA is concerned, I forget who said it first, but the whole "collective right" nonsense is purely an invention of the anti-gun politicians and their acolytes in just the last century. IIRC, the quote was something along the lines of "If the founding fathers did not consider the right to arms to belong to each and every individual citizen, it's the best kept secret in American history".

Stay safe,

 

[Archie]

From the opposite corner.....

Slavery is legal

Only men with property may vote

Women with or without property cannot vote

Telewinz, You forgot about not letting 18 year olds vote. Now, on a strictly factual basis, how is the U. S. any better off today by having changed the three (four if you count my addition) conditions listed above?

Also, please note I am not arguing in favor of slavery; or of the supression of women. The question of slavery was devisive even in the Continental Congress. It was the compromise allowing slavery that helped enable the nation to begin.
However, how did changing these things benefit the U. S. as either a culture or a nation?

You may not settle west of the Ohio River (Indian Lands)

Without doubt, the most shameful episode of U. S. history is our treatment of the Indian nations. As a nation, we should have either honored our treaties or never made them in the first place.

Why should we pay attention to the Founding Fathers? Because they were the ones who came up with a system of government that changes without destroying the culture and citizenry. A system of government that can survive anything but apathy on the part of its citizens.