Quantcast

What If We’re Wrong?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by The Liberal, Dec 16, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jessesky

    Jessesky Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2016
    Messages:
    351
    No, because the whole basis is the 2ndA will not infringe on an existing right rather than stating it gives us the right. So in theory it should be the right of everyone around the world, but are being oppressed by their government. Some more than others.
     
    Waveski, Texas10mm and hq like this.
  2. Wisco

    Wisco Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2013
    Messages:
    965
    The Founders had lots opinions I think are good and many that are absolute trash...Slavery. Indian removal. Second class citizenship for women.

    I don’t give a hoot what a bunch of brilliant, but obviously bigoted, long ago dead men thought at this point. I care about what they actual codified. The framework they designed. What the words say. What they mean in simple terms at the time they were written.

    They did leave us a formula for government that works better than most and thankfully was adaptable enough to give me personhood. Yes, as not completely white, I might not have been a person 100 years ago, much less 200-250.

    Would I care if I found out the Founders were anti-gun? Nope.

    Do I care that the OP is anti-gun? Nope.

    I have guns because I care about my security. There is not a single thing anyone can say that will change my mind on my need for arms.
     
    rodensouth, qwert65, GBExpat and 3 others like this.
  3. OilyPablo

    OilyPablo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,102
    Location:
    WA State (NOT in Seattle)
    This right here.
     
  4. Browning

    Browning Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,234
    Location:
    DFW - TX
  5. MEHavey

    MEHavey Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,755
    Location:
    virginia
    They did tell us . . . and very clearly.
    Read the Federalist Papers.

    Too bad they seem to not effectively teach Civics anymore in high school.
    But then . . . that seems to be a very deliberately calculated move to ensure
    succeeding generations have less & less of a concept of just who they are as Americans.
     
    ontarget, P5 Guy, qwert65 and 8 others like this.
  6. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,577
    Location:
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    ^^
    The writings of Madison, Jefferson, Adams and Franklin are very, very clear about the absolute right to keep and bear arms.

    Regrettably, we now live in an age of revisionist history in which most cannot be burdened to actually educate themselves and do even a modest amount of reading.
     
    P5 Guy, qwert65 and SilentStalker like this.
  7. boom boom
    • Contributing Member

    boom boom Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,676
    Location:
    GA
    There is an inversion in your hypothetical that ignores how natural rights theory was developed and the precise meaning of the Constitution and its enumerated powers.

    To begin with, no government grants rights--the rights are inherent to individuals and the only just government protects those rights. They are not collective rights. Now, the right to bear arms comes to us from the struggles in Great Britain over the nature of a king's rule over England. The Glorious Revolution ensured that kings could not use mercenary armies to thwart the will of the people expressed through Parliament by the English Bill of Rights in 1689. In other words, they forced the new King and Queen of England selected by Parliament to express their agreement that these were the ancient rights of the English and to protect them, including the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

    Those settling in the American colonies at the time were favorable to Whig political theory as it agreed with what they found and believed to be true. Then, they set about creating their own charters, etc. that explicated directly the social contract between the government and the governed. Included in these contracts were certain basic rights. When King George III attempted to destroy these rights of colonists, including the right to bear arms--(after all the whole point of the British expedition to Concord and Lexington was to seize arms owned by the individual minute men.) Note, no one or government made these minutemen show up, take up arms, and risk their lives. They did so as a collective to protect their rights from the English but would not tolerate one among them who was chief to be allowed to disarm others.

    After petitions were ignored by the King, then came bloodshed and revolution due to the King's unwillingness to recognize that colonists should have all of the rights enjoyed by Englishmen in Great Britain.

    The Revolutionary War cemented the ideas that governments must be limited in scope and protect the rights of citizens. Virginia adopted a Bill of Rights before they declared independence as they felt it was so important. Other states did to.

    Then came the fight between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists over a Bill of Rights. The Federalists felt that none was needed because the Government lacked the enumerated powers to violate freedom of speech, seize firearms from individuals, demand all worship a national church, and so forth. If you look at the Constitution itself, there is no power granted to the federal government to take citizen firearms--period. Instead, it gave Congress the power to create an army and navy and to allow the Commander in Chief to take charge of states' militias in the event of war or rebellion.

    Using the necessary and proper clause, Congress can then attempt to make the state militias more effective through providing regulations to states that indicate to some degree how those militias are to be made militarily useful to the U.S. national defense to resist any invasion or rebellion. Remember the national army was extremely small during the Articles, and Congress debated whether to even create a national military. In any event, due to the size and poverty of the U.S., the brunt of protecting the U.S. from Indians, foreign troublemakers from French, to Spanish, to English, and from each other such as the Whiskey Rebellion, meant that militias were the new minutemen that would forestall such things until the regular army could come to their aid. The onus was on the states and the individual companies of average Joe citizens to protect their homes from rebellion and invasion. Without individuals owning their own arms, mustering on their own time, training and providing such materials from their own purse, there would have been few if any militia as states as well as the national government lacked the ability to finance them. Some individuals even had ships with cannons and others, along with communities, banded together to buy such things and provide for poorer individuals the supplies needed. These were truly organic, not governmental, societal organizations that viewed their service to government as service to their friends and community rather than the larger world.

    The fear of the Anti-Federalists that the new federal government would be a tyranny led them to oppose ratification unless the new Constitution had a Bill of Rights. The Federalists generally felt that a Bill of Rights would be dangerous as it would lead tyrants to figure out ways around them and no Bill of Rights could encompass all possible existing rights at the time. The Anti-Federalists persisted and darn near derailed the Constitution in Mass at the Convention there. Thus, the Federalists caved and proposed that the new government should adopt new constitutional amendments aka Bill of Rights. Subsequent ratifying states, especially the important ones, like Virginia agreed. Thus, the Bill of Rights was proposed by the 1st Congress and ratified by the required number of states on Dec. 15, 1791.

    If you look for what the Framers thought about it, you could quickly look at the state constitutions of the time which supported an individual right to firearms (if they had a bill of rights which some states did not). If you want the compilation, you may want to read, THE COMPLETE BILL OF RIGHTS: The Drafts, Debates, Sources, & Origins, Ed. Neil H. Cogan (Oxford Univ. Press) 169-205. 9 states mentioned the individual right to bear arms in their state ratifying conventions, ten had provisions for the right to bear arms, (some by implication of militia service) in their constitutions. Much of the discussion in Congress revolved around the idea that standing armies are dangerous and a national standing army of such as size to defend the U.S. would be A) an agent of oppression B) not affordable. Thus, the discussion then devolve over what power the National government should have to make sure the militia were fit for national service--that is training and supplies. States would be responsible for the rest of the organization and the federal executive could only command the militias upon being mustered into federal service by Congress. Some of the discussion was over individuals right to use arms for self defense as well as hunting, etc. There was no consideration that government had the power to deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Most would agree with Blackstone which then implies some means of self protection, ..".there is a natural law of the right of resistance and self preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found to be insufficient to restrain the violence of repression." Commentaries on the Laws of England.

    In America at the time, there were few police, a very small army, and very real threats of invasions, rebellions, and other disorders. Thus, most households, perhaps outside of the few major cities, had firearms available. The National Government in its militia acts during the 1790's, relied on this self arming by citizens to create an effective militia. That did not imply that the keeping and bearing of firearms depending on militia service, simply that if a person was in the state militia that Congress could mandate certain standards of supply and training for these individuals. However, to carry this out, you must have people with individual firearms on hand, not those kept in a central armory for issue. Community powder storage facilities were largely for public safety due to black powder dangers in large amounts.

    Not one member of Congress, not one reported instance of debates of the Amendments or the Constitution itself, etc. had an individual arguing that Congress had the power granted to them by the Constitution to disarm the people of the U.S.
     
    qwert65, Waveski, drband and 3 others like this.
  8. MistWolf

    MistWolf Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,885
    No. Our rights and freedoms are granted to us by our creator. All our rights.

    We have the right to be free from slavery. Therefore, we have the right to fight being enslaved.

    We are responsible for the welfare of ourselves. Therefore, we have the right to defend our persons and are stewards of those things needed to survive and those things that allow us to thrive- food, shelter, clothing and such tools required for out livelihood.

    We are responsible for our families and others under our care. Therefore, we have the right to defend family members and other in our care and such things needed to provide that care.

    We are responsible for the defense of our communities, our towns and nations. Therefore, we have the right to defend hearth and home and stand against tyrants and traitors who would weaken our resolve and deny us the tools needed for the job, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, due process and the tools needed to defend those freedoms.

    The tools we use in defense of our freedoms, our family, friends, community and nation included firearms. It's with our arms that we keep the peace, not because we use them to force peace on others, but to defend the peace. We are granted these freedoms and responsibilities by our creator, not government, not our Founding Fathers. If our Founding Fathers intended something less, then they didn't think things through well enough. But, our Founding Fathers built the foundation on which we are to build upon, to grow and expand our freedoms. Not to limit them.
     
    SilentStalker and hq like this.
  9. Thomas Mayberry

    Thomas Mayberry Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2018
    Messages:
    30
    Too much emphasis has been placed on "the militia". The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments clearly state that those rights belong to "the people", not the state and not the U.S. government.
     
    qwert65, SilentStalker and boom boom like this.
  10. boom boom
    • Contributing Member

    boom boom Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,676
    Location:
    GA
    Which is why Justice Scalia noted that using textualism to declare it is an individual, not a collective right. The converse is that when the Constitution and amendments refers to states, it says states.
     
    P5 Guy and Spats McGee like this.
  11. paulsj

    paulsj Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    776
    That only mattered when the only weapons available to military were muskets or rifles and front loaded cannons. Today private citizens have no chance against modern American military which is part of big government. The argument we need firearms to prevent tyrannical government is laughable.
     
  12. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    4,945
    Location:
    Virginia
    What is going on here? You don't see the 2nd Amendment as an absolute, so why are you using the word "us"? It's pretty clear that you are not a member of the gun community, and you don't have the same concerns as the gun community. Everything you have written shows that you are in opposition to the gun community.
     
  13. reddog81

    reddog81 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    708
    Location:
    Iowa
    Apparently the Taliban didn't get that message. How long have we been fighting that war?

    20 million veterans live in the US and the active military is a little over 1 million. Which side do you think the 20 million veterans will side on?
     
  14. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    4,945
    Location:
    Virginia
    Disagree. The mere presence of arms in civilian hands is a constraint. They don't have to actually be used to achieve their purpose.
     
  15. DeepSouth

    DeepSouth Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,427
    Location:
    Heart of Dixie
    I disagree with the founders on a few principles, their are amendments I would have repealed. If I found out they were of a different opinion than me, I would simply disagree with them as I do on some other points.

    In short, My opinion on gun rights has nothing to with the second amendment.

    I will say, if I found that they had had a different interpretation than the plain text, it would basically render all founding documents pointless. If any paper doesn’t mean what it says, what good is it?


    I will say, it would change what I think laws should be, if I were to get over the fact they were to incompetent to write plain sentences. Which I would not.
     
    qwert65 likes this.
  16. Ignition Override

    Ignition Override Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Messages:
    5,805
    Location:
    The Mid-South.
    "...the gun community's lobbyists serving as a thinly-veiled arm of the Kremlin". Did somebody on MSNBC or CNN manufacture this statement, based on the usual "anonymous sources", created out of thin air?

    What evidence exists which can support this?
     
    qwert65 likes this.
  17. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,577
    Location:
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    Then I propose that you also need to brush up on your reading and your history lessons. The information is out there, for only the past two hundred and twenty-nine years.
     
    hq likes this.
  18. FL-NC

    FL-NC Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2016
    Messages:
    4,053
    Location:
    Fl panhandle
    But we aren't wrong, here in reality.
     
    qwert65 likes this.
  19. JeeperCreeper

    JeeperCreeper Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2014
    Messages:
    1,071
    Location:
    Under A Rock
    The Bill of Rights did not form my opinion, it merely reinforced it.

    I don't care what the Founding Father's meant, it just so happens that what they wrote agrees with my Freedom Worldview.
     
    Charlie Horse likes this.
  20. Odd Job

    Odd Job Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    7,468
    Location:
    London (ex SA)
    The reality of the situation is much more simple and tangible than that, and makes no reliance on deities or the word of any founder, dead or alive.
    A "right" is something you are afforded only as long as there is a prevailing subscription to it, by the majority of your brethren. It lives and dies by the benevolence of your fellow citizens. What was written by man can just as easily be deleted by man, all it takes is for that subscription to be deemed unpalatable by the majority of your fellow citizens.

    There are only two ways to avoid this:

    1) A massive reduction in the number of citizens who would deem that "right" no longer palatable. That means war, pandemic or some large scale natural disaster.
    2) A change in the way children are educated and reared in the family setting and at school, so that there is a strong subscription to the principle of individual responsibility and the associated realignment of society's moral compass.

    It is quite simply a numbers game. The majority of people determine what a society subscribes to, in terms of "rights."
    Neither the founders nor <insert deity here> will come down from on high and champion your "rights."

    The root cause of the problem is wider and more fundamental than any interpretation of 2A language.
     
    Casefull, AlexanderA, qwert65 and 3 others like this.
  21. kozak6

    kozak6 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,195
    Location:
    Arizona
    Personally, it wouldn't result in anything other than bafflement and extreme suspicion.

    Their own writings are quite clear on the matter. Quite clear.

    "You know all those things we wrote? LOL, it was opposite day!" isn't going to change my mind.
     
  22. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    2,934
    Location:
    Arkansas
    No, but I would wonder if the FF had hit their heads on something. The RKBA is a fundamental, individual right. SCOTUS took a while to say it, but it has finally done so. I have a right, pre-existing the Constitution yet enumerated in it, to keep and bear the arms necessary to defend my life, my home, my family, my community, and my country.

    Yes and no. The Bill of Rights is as undemocratic a document as any I've ever seen. If there's enough of a majority, of course, it can be amended (as I'm sure you're aware), but up until that point . . . . those provisions that deal with individual rights are enumerated to protect the individual from the (tyranny of the) majority.
     
    drband and bannockburn like this.
  23. Sovblocgunfan

    Sovblocgunfan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2015
    Messages:
    667
    Location:
    Spring TX
    What if the founders weren’t wrong? They had just got done with demonstrating THE VERY REASON why it was important to codify the right to bear arms. FURTHER, they were very much in mind of attempts by Parliament and the redcoats to control and remove arms and ammunition in order to control the colonists.

    http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html

    “What if” alternate-reality scenarios about the founders being wrong are... well... wrong...
     
  24. SilentStalker

    SilentStalker Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,445
    Location:
    Somewhere in the U.S., London, or Australia
    We respectfully disagree. That’s not the way the BOR was intended to be received. If it’s like you stated then what was the point in specifying and setting aside the BOR at all? I get that it can be amended and in some ways related to your numbers game but that’s not easy to do, by design. There is a reason they are considered a natural right. In your example, there would be no such thing as individual freedoms, ever. It would be mob rule which is where we are headed. I also don’t believe that a group can decide what is best for me. That is antecedent to the core of what America is.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2018
    ontarget likes this.
  25. Waveski

    Waveski Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    Messages:
    1,431
    Location:
    43 north
    "That only mattered when the only weapons available to military were muskets or rifles and front loaded cannons. Today private citizens have no chance against modern American military which is part of big government. The argument we need firearms to prevent tyrannical government is laughable."



    The entity we need to defend ourselves has bigger weapons than us , so we should surrender our weapons to that entity.....

    Mr paulsj , I interpret your statement as a declaration of surrender.
     
    ontarget likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice