- And they believed that bleeding would cure disease
- And they would tell you that you were crazy that something heavier than air could fly long distances, let alone travel to another planet.
Actually, I would guess that the founding fathers wouldn't have a problem with criminals, traitors, and the insane not being allowed to own guns, which means they would support gun control.
Whoops, another "pro-gun" argument turns out to be baseless.
From The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents: December 12, 1787:
Of all the actual primary source literature I've read, this is the most "gun friendly". But even with being "gun friendly" the no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals says to me that they would have no problem with gun control.
More importantly, the real issue for them is the last part of this:
The reality is that the Second Amendment relates to:
And Article I, section 8, clause 16 of the US Constitution.
Anyone with a shred of knowledge of the US constitution knows this is the case, with the exceptions of five people on the Supreme Court.
7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.
Of all the actual primary source literature I've read, this is the most "gun friendly". But even with being "gun friendly" the no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals says to me that they would have no problem with gun control.
More importantly, the real issue for them is the last part of this:
as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.If you read the actual document, that this the main concern at the time and what the Second Amendment relates to: not private guns.
The reality is that the Second Amendment relates to:
as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.
And Article I, section 8, clause 16 of the US Constitution.
Anyone with a shred of knowledge of the US constitution knows this is the case, with the exceptions of five people on the Supreme Court.
We can debate on WHY those five fail to realise this.
"The reality is that the Second Amendment relates to:
ReplyDeleteas standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers." -- Laci
The reality is that the Second Amendment codifies an untouchable Natural pre-existing right ... just like the rest of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
The Founders went to great lengths to ensure liberty. And since the biggest threat to liberty throughout all of recorded history is government (whether domestic or foreign), the Founders made sure to codify the Natural pre-existing right keep and bear arms as a Doomsday provision should any government ever exceed its legitimate, moral, and constitutional bounds.
Did the Founders declare that is strategically wise to eliminate standing armies? They sure did. Does that relate the Second Amendment's purpose to ensure a free state? It sure does.
However, if government can declare anyone and everyone to be a felon for any reason whatsoever -- and then forbid everyone from keeping and bearing arms because they are all felons -- there is no longer a Doomsday provision and any government (domestic or foreign) can subject anyone and everyone to tyranny. For that reason alone, the Founders would not support "gun control" and neither can we.
If a person is so dangerous to society that we cannot trust them with firearms, then we cannot trust them with 4000 pound missiles (cars), matches and gasoline, or anything else. If someone is that dangerous to society, then the legitimate response is to follow due-process and try them in court for their wrongs. And for any highly dangerous individual who falls through the proverbial cracks, we have the option of being armed to defend ourselves from such dangerous individuals.
-- TruthBeTold
Only short-sighted adoration of the sainted founders could lead to a statement like this.
Delete"The Founders went to great lengths to ensure liberty." You mean liberty for white property owners only, right? Which naturally excludes all women as well as blacks.
It's embarrassing that you idolize the slave-raping misogynists like you do.