My take on the what the Founding Fathers had in mind in regard to the 2nd Amendment

Discussion in 'Politics' started by LibertyLemming, Jan 10, 2013.

  1. LibertyLemming
    Offline

    LibertyLemming VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2012
    Messages:
    1,988
    Thanks Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +167
    If "arms" at the time of the Founding Fathers meant the absolute most deadly, harmful, dangerous weapon(s) in the world (cannons, muskets, flint lock pistols, swords, etc), it serves to reason that they wanted to guarantee that the ability of the citizens to have equal arms as the governments of the world (since that is exactly what they did) when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. It would be equivalent to permitting nuclear weapons if we were writing the Bill of Rights in today's time, since they are arms, you know nuclear arms, and it says my right to bear them shall not be infringed.

    Could they have imagined nuclear weapons and the other advances in weaponry that have happened? No, but that doesn't negate the original intention and principal of the document.

    I'm aware that we have a super dope ass kicking military but they're not exactly being used to protect us lately, let alone that should have nothing to do with me being able to protect myself.

    Furthermore, based on some excerpts from the Founding Fathers and Article 1 Section 8, I don't think they wanted us to have a standing army in times of peace. Which is why they wanted the people to be armed, to defend themselves if need be from whomever it may be.

    I'm not saying I know what people were thinking 200+ years ago, it is just my hypothesis. I find it interesting that a lot of things that are contentious now and highly debated are things that the Founding Fathers never implemented when they had the chance. Things like the draft, things income tax, things like making sure the Government was better armed than its citizens, things like redistributing wealth to those who were not doing well (be that because of a bad choice they made or being disabled by no choice of their own). They relied on charity and family and friends to care for people and on the country to be able to come together and fight when they're common values and their geography was threatened. They relied on people to care for themselves for the most part. It is quite possible that times have just changed and that society no longer values the same things, or perhaps they are so disconnected from how things were that they don't think of alternatives.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2013
  2. tyroneweaver
    Offline

    tyroneweaver Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,350
    Thanks Received:
    1,757
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Burley, Idaho
    Ratings:
    +6,845
    I wondered if they thought you could buy votes by handing out free goodies.
     
  3. jwoodie
    Offline

    jwoodie Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,756
    Thanks Received:
    1,287
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,904
    Interesting take on bearing "arms" to include swords and other nonexplosive devices. Another aspect that seems to be frequently overlooked is that the first ten Amendments (Bill of Rights) was written as a limitation on federal power only. The implication is that States were individually empowered to defend themselves against any external threats.
     
  4. Dutch
    Offline

    Dutch Silver Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,745
    Thanks Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +462
    The bible states that we should stone women who commit adultry. Do we follow that practice? No, because 2000 years ago was a very different time than now and society realizes this.
     
  5. LibertyLemming
    Offline

    LibertyLemming VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2012
    Messages:
    1,988
    Thanks Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +167
    Indeed. I would further assert that no standing armies may have more or less meant no Federal Army. Perhaps at a State there would be some organization of local militia and then if the country were attacked the State's could unite their militias and dominate.
     
  6. g5000
    Offline

    g5000 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    55,976
    Thanks Received:
    9,333
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +24,524
    One of the most advanced fighting tools in the arms locker during the period of our Founding Fathers was the naval fighting vessel.

    Many such vessels were privately owned and contracted out by our government to fight their battles for them. These were known as "privateers".
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. LibertyLemming
    Offline

    LibertyLemming VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2012
    Messages:
    1,988
    Thanks Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +167
    The Bible is a book of stories, it is not a social contract to organize and regulate human beings via force. If I disobey the Bible, nothing happens to me. Well, maybe when I die you might say, but that is neither here nor there.
     
  8. jwoodie
    Offline

    jwoodie Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,756
    Thanks Received:
    1,287
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,904
    I believe the New Testament provides a different interpretation.
     
  9. g5000
    Offline

    g5000 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    55,976
    Thanks Received:
    9,333
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +24,524
    Which is why we have a Constitutional amendment process.

    And that process is deliberately difficult so that a populist is not able to quickly sway the gullible mob into giving up their liberties for all time over some passing exigency.
     
  10. bigrebnc1775
    Offline

    bigrebnc1775 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    64,004
    Thanks Received:
    3,798
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Location:
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,830
    Yes they did that's why they wanted the states to vote on Senators. But of course a democrat fucked that up also.
     

Share This Page