Were the Founding Fathers ...today....to write the Bill of Rights...

[gipper]

One can always identify a gun grabbing leftist. They clearly know nothing of history or the true meaning of the Bill of Rights.

Don't forget to also hold on to your balls......LOL

Why do you think that funny?

Are you strange as well as ignorant?

 

[gipper]

Knowing what we now know about technology AND many Americans' propensities toward violence, would the Founding Fathers include the 2nd amendment as part of our Constitution?

Or would the wording of such a poorly written and unclear statement be more specific about guns' ownership?

That depends on whether or not there would again be states that opposed ratification without the Second like there was the first time...

He don't know about no ratification.

 

[westwall]

The 2A was extremely important to the Founders. They made that very clear in all their writings.

For one to ask this question, merely exposes oneself as an idiot and a brainwashed leftist dupe.

Funny how leftists do that with regularity, and don't even know it.

How "true"......arming every american sure as hell stopped the War of 1812, correct?

When the settlement that became our town marched out to meet the British, only two of the men had guns. The rest brought staves and pitchforks and axes. Guns were expensive. I don't think as many people owned them as might be believed.

That has been shown to be untrue. Looking at various last wills and testaments, researchers have shown that the Colonies were very heavily armed. In fact there was even a private artillery company founded in Boston back in the mid 1600's. It is still with us as a more fraternal organization now, but it was an active participant in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and the Spanish American War. It is called "The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston".

I was speaking very specifically of our local history, which is well documented by the Captain who had command of the volunteers who joined the battle. I take your word for it, although as an amateur genealogist, I've read a lot of Wills and do not recall guns. Or among the detailed listing of possessions of ancestors who died intestate. But maybe it's because I'm in the willy wags.

A good friend of mine is the retired State Archivist for Nevada and through him I have been able to speak with many of the leading researchers on colonial history. There is an amazing amount that never makes it into the books which is a very sad thing.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Actually it was well written and and the FF had just finished fighting a tooth and nail war against the most powerful nation on earth that had tried to take away their guns at Lexington and Concord. I think they knew exactly what they were talking about.

The guns at Lexington and Concord were stolen from the British, you know. They were stolen to start that war. The FF were also very aware of that.

For freedom that some want to squander.

I am not the one to agree with that.

No, I think all Americans should be free.

 

[Hossfly]

There was not a musket above every hearth.

And you know this how?

Nosmo probably doesn't think Paul Revere said, "To arms, to arms..........!, but said, "To clubs, to pitchforks! The British are coming!"

And there was not a 100% turnout by the citizens.

Yup! They even had liberal craven cowards back in those days. No biggie.

There was about a 30%, 30%, 30% split in the colonies. One third wanted independence, one third wanted to stay with Britain and one third remained on the sidelines waiting to see who prevailed.

My family's military history began in the Revolutionary War in the Continental Army. I have a nephew in the Navy and two grand-nephews in the Marines today. Since 1775, every able bodied man in my family has served in the military. Our family believes it is our civic duty.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Depends upon whether you read history or the Left's attempted rewrites.

Most recently with the marvelous electoral stomping of Hillary Clinton and the Forces of Evil by Donald Trump, and his inexorably proceeding disassembly of Obama's legacy.

It's almost gone!

Relying on a Russian thumb on the electoral scale then rolling back protections for the children of immigrants, the environment, homosexuals and the transgendered are not accomplishments that amount to "winning".

Stop being ridiculous. The Russians did not change one vote. The rest are matters of opinion.

The Russians have influenced many opinions with their campaign of divisiveness and their fake news. Opinions lead to choices when we vote. There is nothing ridiculous about that, is there?

I believe that all but a minuscule percentage of those who actually voted in 2016 made their choice the month the candidates were nominated. The mythical "undecided vote" was as fictional as the polls that showed Hillary ascending her rightful throne by huge margins. It served to keep her in the game.

So you think the Russians didn't step in until the conventions?

I think the Russians stepped in about 1946. I don't believe they had any noticeable effect on the 2016 election, since I believe the decision-making majority of voters made their choice well before it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives believe that the US military is their personal SS and will follow any order to disarm and round up their countrymen. They think we're North Korea

 

[SavannahMann]

Because, were you not a complete ignorant fool, you would KNOW that the "militia" was EVERYONE

So, **** heads with guns......like you....are NOW part of a "militia"???......LOL

Having answered this twice before, I wonder why you ignore the replies. Perhaps like many true believers, you do not wish to acknowledge facts. Actually, a **** head with a gun is exactly who the Militia was at the time of the Constitution.

Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia

Every able bodied free man was a member of the Militia. Now being that we have gotten rid of the sexism and racism that was endemic at that time, I guess we could say every able bodied adult. But yes, that is the literal definition of Militia from the era of the 2nd Amendment.

Now, Cannon were able to be purchased privately, and the idea of military grade weapons being in private hands did not change for well over a century. In fact, the Rough Riders, of Teddy Roosevelt fame, had two actual Machine Guns that were privately owned, purchased by families of the soldiers and donated to the troops for their fight.

M1895 Colt–Browning machine gun - Wikipedia

All of this is history. All of it is factual history. Now, because you don’t want to deal with facts, and you don’t want to deal with anything that does not conform to your view of what History was really like, then we are going to be really busy. First we’re going to have to White Out a lot of documents to get rid of mentions of privately owned cannons and Privateers. I don’t know what we’ll do with the nearly 600 British Ships that Privateers with a Letter of Marque from the United States Government captured. But perhaps we can pretend that they pulled along side the British ships, and instead of threatening them, we just encouraged them to act nice and just give up.

The American Revolution

It is literally going to take several lifetimes to get these historical references to the kinds of weapons that you claim the Founders could not imagine, out of history.

You say the Founders could never imagine this or that. But that is in direct violation of history. Because many of the weapons you can’t see the Founders imagining, already existed in primitive form, and would only increase, and improve.

Volley gun - Wikipedia

The very principles that the Paratroopers of World War II followed were actually laid down by Benjamin Franklin. Airborne forces - Wikipedia

Benjamin Franklin had never seen an airplane, nor a parachute. They had not been invented, yet he invisioned the mayhem that would result from dropping troops behind the lines.

These visionary people were somehow so obtuse though, that they could not imagine Weapons improving over the decades, and generations to come. When Weapons had been doing nothing but improving over the decades and generations before. Somehow these fools were so stupid that they imagined that progress would cease now. As if they were Amish or something.

That’s the problem with your entire premise. The Founders did in fact imagine much of what is available. It was not called Science Fiction for another Century, but they had it. Franklin’s vision of Paratroopers was the form the actual Airborne Assaults of World War II would embody.

The Hot Air Balloon was risky beyond description. The alternative of Hydrogen was dangerous beyond imagining. Yet, Franklin imagined a time when men would float down from the clouds on parachutes and run amok in the enemy rear areas.

Could they draw an accurate picture of what the future would look like? No. They trusted us to work it out. They trusted that if we ran into a problem, we would use that system they put in place to address it. We could amend the document if it no longer suited us.

I love History, and I read a lot of history books, and websites. Stuff I thought was boring when I was a child, is now fascinating. The nuances that I hated to read about before the exciting parts is now the most interesting thing in the world to me. Those nuances are the foundation of the exciting bits.

This is why I find your entire approach to be flawed. Insultingly so. Because the Founders were far more visionary than you give them credit for.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Now being that we have gotten rid of the sexism and racism that was endemic at that time

We have not in the least. Every accusation the Left makes against American thought revolves around racism or sexism.

They could not survive without keeping both alive.

 

[Nosmo King]

Relying on a Russian thumb on the electoral scale then rolling back protections for the children of immigrants, the environment, homosexuals and the transgendered are not accomplishments that amount to "winning".

Stop being ridiculous. The Russians did not change one vote. The rest are matters of opinion.

The Russians have influenced many opinions with their campaign of divisiveness and their fake news. Opinions lead to choices when we vote. There is nothing ridiculous about that, is there?

I believe that all but a minuscule percentage of those who actually voted in 2016 made their choice the month the candidates were nominated. The mythical "undecided vote" was as fictional as the polls that showed Hillary ascending her rightful throne by huge margins. It served to keep her in the game.

So you think the Russians didn't step in until the conventions?

I think the Russians stepped in about 1946. I don't believe they had any noticeable effect on the 2016 election, since I believe the decision-making majority of voters made their choice well before it.

When Comey said he was reopening the FBI investigation, Hillary's lead in the polls tanked. And that happened in late October of 2016. Trump lost the popular vote and wind Michigan by fewer than 24,000 votes. Wisconsin by fewer than 13,000.

If that revelation could sway voters at that late point, what effect did the flood of crap from Wikileaks do since early October?

Trump wants to celebrate his victory without mention of the means of the campaign. But given the Facebook ads bought by his Russian allies and the Podesta Wikileaks stuff, it appears that such information swayed enough voters.

I know Trump supporters want to believe in their own strengths, but information played a bigger role than might be comfortable.

 

[westwall]

Stop being ridiculous. The Russians did not change one vote. The rest are matters of opinion.

The Russians have influenced many opinions with their campaign of divisiveness and their fake news. Opinions lead to choices when we vote. There is nothing ridiculous about that, is there?

I believe that all but a minuscule percentage of those who actually voted in 2016 made their choice the month the candidates were nominated. The mythical "undecided vote" was as fictional as the polls that showed Hillary ascending her rightful throne by huge margins. It served to keep her in the game.

So you think the Russians didn't step in until the conventions?

I think the Russians stepped in about 1946. I don't believe they had any noticeable effect on the 2016 election, since I believe the decision-making majority of voters made their choice well before it.

When Comey said he was reopening the FBI investigation, Hillary's lead in the polls tanked. And that happened in late October of 2016. Trump lost the popular vote and wind Michigan by fewer than 24,000 votes. Wisconsin by fewer than 13,000.

If that revelation could sway voters at that late point, what effect did the flood of crap from Wikileaks do since early October?

Trump wants to celebrate his victory without mention of the means of the campaign. But given the Facebook ads bought by his Russian allies and the Podesta Wikileaks stuff, it appears that such information swayed enough voters.

I know Trump supporters want to believe in their own strengths, but information played a bigger role than might be comfortable.

Which lead in what poll? EVERY poll that was out there said she was going to win by a landslide. Every. Single. One. Your problem is you believed the bullpoo. The reality is everyone had already made their mind as regards the shrilary long before comey ever began his nonsense.

 

[Nosmo King]

The Russians have influenced many opinions with their campaign of divisiveness and their fake news. Opinions lead to choices when we vote. There is nothing ridiculous about that, is there?

I believe that all but a minuscule percentage of those who actually voted in 2016 made their choice the month the candidates were nominated. The mythical "undecided vote" was as fictional as the polls that showed Hillary ascending her rightful throne by huge margins. It served to keep her in the game.

So you think the Russians didn't step in until the conventions?

I think the Russians stepped in about 1946. I don't believe they had any noticeable effect on the 2016 election, since I believe the decision-making majority of voters made their choice well before it.

When Comey said he was reopening the FBI investigation, Hillary's lead in the polls tanked. And that happened in late October of 2016. Trump lost the popular vote and wind Michigan by fewer than 24,000 votes. Wisconsin by fewer than 13,000.

If that revelation could sway voters at that late point, what effect did the flood of crap from Wikileaks do since early October?

Trump wants to celebrate his victory without mention of the means of the campaign. But given the Facebook ads bought by his Russian allies and the Podesta Wikileaks stuff, it appears that such information swayed enough voters.

I know Trump supporters want to believe in their own strengths, but information played a bigger role than might be comfortable.

Which lead in what poll? EVERY poll that was out there said she was going to win by a landslide. Every. Single. One. Your problem is you believed the bullpoo. The reality is everyone had already made their mind as regards the shrilary long before comey ever began his nonsense.

You might have made up your mind, but those who held their nose and voted for Trump (I call then the 'Trump-curious') had not. That's why the polls were so wrong. Democrat strongholds in the mid-west were polled as usual, Democrat strongholds. But the Trump-curious made up their minds at the eleventh hour confounding the pollsters.

 

[westwall]

I believe that all but a minuscule percentage of those who actually voted in 2016 made their choice the month the candidates were nominated. The mythical "undecided vote" was as fictional as the polls that showed Hillary ascending her rightful throne by huge margins. It served to keep her in the game.

So you think the Russians didn't step in until the conventions?

I think the Russians stepped in about 1946. I don't believe they had any noticeable effect on the 2016 election, since I believe the decision-making majority of voters made their choice well before it.

When Comey said he was reopening the FBI investigation, Hillary's lead in the polls tanked. And that happened in late October of 2016. Trump lost the popular vote and wind Michigan by fewer than 24,000 votes. Wisconsin by fewer than 13,000.

If that revelation could sway voters at that late point, what effect did the flood of crap from Wikileaks do since early October?

Trump wants to celebrate his victory without mention of the means of the campaign. But given the Facebook ads bought by his Russian allies and the Podesta Wikileaks stuff, it appears that such information swayed enough voters.

I know Trump supporters want to believe in their own strengths, but information played a bigger role than might be comfortable.

Which lead in what poll? EVERY poll that was out there said she was going to win by a landslide. Every. Single. One. Your problem is you believed the bullpoo. The reality is everyone had already made their mind as regards the shrilary long before comey ever began his nonsense.

You might have made up your mind, but those who held their nose and voted for Trump (I call then the 'Trump-curious') had not. That's why the polls were so wrong. Democrat strongholds in the mid-west were polled as usual, Democrat strongholds. But the Trump-curious made up their minds at the eleventh hour confounding the pollsters.

The polls were wrong because they over sampled Democrat voters. I don't know it if was because they were lazy, or because they were trying to convince people to vote for her knowing she was in trouble from the beginning. I travel a lot and I never saw hilary signs save in CA along the coast. I saw trump signs EVERYWHERE!. That was a common observation made by the pundits after she lost as well. They ignored that little bit of evidence and believed the polls instead.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Stop being ridiculous. The Russians did not change one vote. The rest are matters of opinion.

The Russians have influenced many opinions with their campaign of divisiveness and their fake news. Opinions lead to choices when we vote. There is nothing ridiculous about that, is there?

I believe that all but a minuscule percentage of those who actually voted in 2016 made their choice the month the candidates were nominated. The mythical "undecided vote" was as fictional as the polls that showed Hillary ascending her rightful throne by huge margins. It served to keep her in the game.

So you think the Russians didn't step in until the conventions?

I think the Russians stepped in about 1946. I don't believe they had any noticeable effect on the 2016 election, since I believe the decision-making majority of voters made their choice well before it.

When Comey said he was reopening the FBI investigation, Hillary's lead in the polls tanked.

She had already tanked. Media was simply not reporting it.

Trump lost the popular vote and wind Michigan by fewer than 24,000 votes. Wisconsin by fewer than 13,000.

He won the states necessary to win the Electoral College. All else is irrelevant.

 

[Correll]

he Foundung Fathers would ve utterly disgusted with the Government we have today

In other words, they would be today saying, "we fucked up" with this experiment ???

Why blame the Founders? They gave us a flexible framework open to change. We are not willing to change certain parts of it at this point. That's on us, not the Founders.

If anything, we have changed it for the worse.

 

[monkrules]

The Founders wanted to protect America, not destroy it. So they would have made it illegal to elect, as President, a brain-dead buffoon with the intellect of a Pet Rock — so trump would have been shit-outta-luck.

 

[Auld Phart]

The Founders wanted to protect America, not destroy it. So they would have made it illegal to elect, as President, a brain-dead buffoon with the intellect of a Pet Rock — so trump would have been shit-outta-luck.

yup...

and then none of the above would have been the only one running last November

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

The Founders wanted to protect America, not destroy it. So they would have made it illegal to elect, as President, a brain-dead buffoon with the intellect of a Pet Rock — so trump would have been shit-outta-luck.

And The Hag still lost to him.

Speaks volumes brahj.

 

[BlackSand]

...

Or would the wording of such a poorly written and unclear statement be more specific about guns' ownership?

It is only unclear if you want/try to make it say something it doesn't ...

.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Founders wanted to protect America, not destroy it. So they would have made it illegal to elect, as President, a brain-dead buffoon with the intellect of a Pet Rock — so trump would have been shit-outta-luck.

That would be no more enforceable than a religious test, which though illegal, takes place quite freely in the voting booth every election.