What The Second Amendment Really Means – The Founders Weigh In

By Dr. Larry Trick

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
– Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”
– Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined . . . The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence . . . I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
– William Pitt (the Younger), speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
– Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, January 9–February 5, 1788

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
– Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“[T]he ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone . . .”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
– George Mason, address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

“To disarm the people . . . [i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty . . . Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
– Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
– Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”
– George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
– St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

 

Lorence (Larry) Trick, MD is a retired orthopedic surgeon, and an avid upland bird hunter and clays shooter.  

This post was originally published at drgo.us and is reprinted here with permission.

comments

  1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    Outstanding assemblage. Bookmarked.

  2. avatar Bloving says:

    That need to be added to the Facts About Guns page.
    🤠

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Absolutely.

  3. avatar Matthew says:

    Agreed, excellent article! Thank you TTAG.

  4. avatar BLAMMO says:

    What the hell were they thinking?

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      They envisioned a world where people like Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama and Michael Bloomberg and George Soros and (God forbid) Hillary Clinton would rise to power.

      In other words, they knew there would be tyrants who would attempt to strip us of liberty and freedom, and they knew we might have to defend said liberty with force.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “…they knew we might have to defend said liberty with force.”

        You mean like with weapons? Like with firearms? Like with “weapons of war”?

        Nah, that couldn’t be it.

      2. avatar CZJay says:

        If only the righteous Republicans would pass some kind of Patriot Act.

        1. avatar New Continental Army says:

          Yep. The evil republicans did away with the constitution and installed Bush as the next Hitler and that’s why Bush is still dictator!

    2. avatar CZJay says:

      We all know that those people were dumber than a SJW. What could they possibly know about the future of man? They couldn’t even imagine that a woman could become a man and a man a woman; that there is no such thing as man or woman in the first place.

      Obviously as we greatly evolved we created two choices in ultimate progress of people kind by offering a nanny state or a military state. You can go with the left choice to get yourself a large police state that becomes your nanny for every decision one could possibly make. You can go right to create a large military empire that goes off to be the nanny in other countries before they eventually come back to kill and break shit at home.

      In the future our nanny will be a robot programed by all our best leaders with the best AI possible. We won’t need to vote for people or make personal decisions anymore. The Great Leader will provide us with an answer to any question or problem we have. Our Great Leader will purge all that is negative. Forever live the Great Leader.

      1. avatar Tom says:

        .

”Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.” -
Thomas Jefferson.


      2. avatar Kenneth says:

        Yet another Statist (sigh…) looking for a free handout and some ‘savior’ to do everything FOR him. I am left to assume that it is because he is incapable of doing the most minor of things for himself…

      3. avatar KyKPH says:

        All one needs to know about the “Future of Man” is to study history. We keep doing the same things over and over producing our own misery and despair. The Founders recognized that fact and tried to devise a system to break the cycle.

        Alas, looking at how things are going today, the Founders may have underestimated man’s power of self destruction! We need to respect and adhere to the principles they left us and quit trying to reinvent the wheels of a governmental system that is the best devised so far.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “All one needs to know about the “Future of Man” is to study history. We keep doing the same things over and over producing our own misery and despair.”

          “All things are wearisome, more than one can describe; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear content with hearing. What has been is what will be, and what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”
          – Ecclestastes 1, v 8&9

  5. avatar Nanashi says:

    Not sure what a Prime Minister of Great Britain (William Pit) is doing on this list. There’s also debate on if the “A LOVER OF PEACE” who wrote “Thoughts on Defensive War” was Thomas Paine. Otherwise good.

    1. avatar Porkchop says:

      William Pitt the Elder, at the time no longer prime minister, was a supporter of the American position regarding taxation without representation.

      http://www.history.org/Almanack/life/politics/pitt.cfm

      His son, William Pitt the Younger (a future prime minister) was a prominent supporter of making peace with the colonies after becoming an MP in 1781, terming the conflict “an unjust war.”

      http://www.answers.com/Q/What_did_William_Pitt_do_in_the_American_Revolutionary_war

      The quote from Pitt the Younger, although apposite, has nothing to do with the American Revolution. Rather, he said those words in opposition to a bill that would have been a sort of bailout of the failing East India Company. Shortly after making that statement, Pitt the Younger became the youngest prime minister in British history in 1783.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Pitt_the_Younger

    2. avatar Malice says:

      Yo, Grunty!

  6. avatar anarchyst says:

    The problem is, we have allowed the anti Second Amendment crowd to define the terms.
    A firearm is a tool which possesses no evil intent on its own. Assigning intent to an inanimate object is the epitome of insanity. Demonizing a weapon on looks alone also marks the accuser as an unstable individual who is also insane. Call them out on their illogic and insanity.
    Another dirty tactic the anti-Second Amendment crowd uses exposes children to potential and actual harm by putting them in gun-free zones. These people care not one wit about children, but uses them for their own nefarious purposes.
    We need to TAKE BACK the argument
    When the antis blame the firearm for the actions of a criminal, state that: a firearm is an inanimate object, subject only to the intent of the user. Firearms ARE used to preserve life and make a 90 lb. woman equal to a 200 lb. criminal”.
    When the antis attempt to justify their gun free zones counter their misguided argument with you mean, criminal safety zones or victim disarmament zones.
    State that we protect our money, banks, politicians and celebrities, buildings and facilities with PEOPLE WITH GUNS, but protect our children with gun-free zone signs.
    When the antis criticize AR-15s in general, counter with: you mean the most popular rifle of the day, use able by even the smallest, weakest person as a means of self-defense. Besides, AR-15s are FUN to shoot. Offer to take them to the range and supply them with an AR-15, ammunition and range time. I have made
    many converts this way.
    When the antis state that: You dont need an AR-15 to hunt with, counter with AR-15s ARE used for hunting, but in many states, are prohibited from being used to take large game because they are underpowered.
    When the antis state that: AR-15s are high powered rifles, correct them by stating that AR-15s with the .223 or 5.56mm cartridge are considered medium-powered weapons-NOT high-powered by any means.
    When the antis state that: you don’t need and AR-15, counter with, Who are YOU to consider what I need?
    When the antis state that: the Constitution was written during the time of muskets, and that the Second Amendment should only apply to weapons of that time period, state that: by your logic, the First Amendment should not apply to modern-day telecommunications, internet, television, radio, public-address systems, books and newspapers produced on high-speed offset printing presses. Only town-criers and Benjamin Franklin type printing presses would be covered under the First Amendment.
    When the antis state that only law enforcement and government should possess firearms, remind them of the latest school shooting, as well as Columbine, where law enforcement SAT ON THEIR HANDS and cowered in fear while children were being murdered, citing officer safety, afraid to challenge the shooter, despite being armed to the hilt. The government-run murderous sieges at Ruby Ridge and Waco are also good examples of government (mis)use of firearms.
    This tome can be used to counter any argument against any infringement of our Second Amendment.

    1. avatar Gordon in MO says:

      Quote: “When the antis attempt to justify their gun free zones counter their misguided argument with you mean, criminal safety zones or victim disarmament zones.”

      Rather than call it a “gun free zone” I call it a free fire zone. Criminals are free to safely fire on everyone in there….unless some POG carry concealed anyway.

    2. avatar RA-15 says:

      ANARCHYST that’s it in a nutshell !! Now let all the little squirrel’s gather that information up and take it home , chew on it for a bit. Maybe it will sink in to their heads. The above should be noticed by all. Thanks TTAG.

  7. avatar anarchyst says:

    Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies. The duck hunters don’t like the AR-15 “black rifles” so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them. The traditional rifle owners don’t like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence. Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned. You see, anti-gunners want them all. They will chip away a little at a time until their goal of civilian disarmament is complete. They have an excuse for banning every firearm. Scoped bolt-action rifles are defined by anti-gunners as “sniper rifles” because they are “too accurate”. Magazine-fed weapons are suspect because of high (actually normal) magazine capacity. Handguns are suspect because they are “easily concealable”. The gun grabbers want them all and have made (flimsy and suspect) excuses for banning every type of firearm. They don’t care how long it takes. and will use incrementalism to their advantage.
    Friends, ALL firearms advocates must “hang together” and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.
    There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL…
    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face. Imagine the hue and cry if “reasonable” restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the “mainstream media”. The Second Amendment is clear–what part of “shall not be infringed” do politicians and the media not understand…of course, they understand full well…it’s part of their communist agenda…
    Even the NRA bears some responsibility for capitulation on matters concerning firearms. The NRA failed when it allowed the National Firearms Act of 1934 to stand without offering opposition, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the NICS “instant check” system, the “no new machine gun for civilians” ban in 1986, the so-called “assault weapons ban in 1991, and other infringements on the Second Amendment. Let’s face it. What better way to increase membership than to “allow” infringements to be enacted and then push for a new membership drive. Yes, the NRA has done good, but its spirit of “compromise” will only lead to one thing…confiscation.
    If the NRA is truly the premier “gun rights” organization, it must reject ALL compromise…

    1. avatar Scoutino says:

      Again?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Again?”

        Why not? Somehow we seem to think “Shall Not Be Infringed” should be invoked at least once a week. Or RTKBA. Why not a reminder, and an introduction for people new to the blog from time-to-time?

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Even if anarchyst is essentially right in his cut and paste, Sam, this is a guy that denies the holocaust and claims hitler will be vindicated by history.

          He’s not an ally we need.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “He’s not an ally we need.”

          So, we have our own list of deplorables? People we don’t want to vote for 2A, or other constitutionally protected rights? Votes are sorta like dollars, they all look alike, and have no pedigree. We never know who was the original holder of a dollar bill, and we do not know who voted how.

          Every vote counts. Remember the old, “When they came for….” When they come for us, and one of our deplorables rushes to our defense, do we refuse the help because we don’t want to be associated with our deplorables?

          President Reagan was accused of being aligned with the KKK because the Grand Exulted Periwinkle (or whatever) declared the Klan should back Reagan in the election. Reagan replied, “The Klan is endorsing me, I do not endorse the Klan.”; stopped that line of attack cold. Reagan did not demand that any Klan votes be identified, and ruled invalid.

          As for “anarchyst”, can’t we just let dumbassery take its course?

        3. avatar Kenneth says:

          Anyone who is determined to reject perfectly good allies based upon nothing but his own personal bias, is an Ally that NOBODY(at least, no sane man) wants…

    2. avatar Bob Jones says:

      The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. In fact, an interpretation could be made that most non-military firearms and fowling pieces are not “Armaments” and thus not protected by the 2nd Amendment & can be rounded up at any time.
      Browning Citori over-under — Turn it In, NOT Military Grade Armament.
      Saturday Night Special — Turn It In, NOT Military Grade Armament.

      Fudds Beware, they CAN take YOUR guns at any time without violating the Constitution.

      1. avatar Mark says:

        Bob, the firearms used by those alive in the 1700 were also used for hunting. There is no reason for any intelligent individual to assume that times are any different. Mr. Fudd

      2. avatar Clark Kent says:

        Correction: they can TRY to take firearms from citizens. Let us see how that plays out. ‘Soap box, ballot box, cartridge box’ – Abraham Lincoln.

  8. avatar former water walker says:

    Well yeah…Murica! BTW I logged in on Duckduckgo to see if it had improved. It HAS! Used to be horribly slow😏

    1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      Yep, I changed my default search to the Duck months ago. They don’t spy on you and run from within a VPN neither can my provider. Big tech is anti gun, anti freedom, and pro Democrat.

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        I very rarely use the ‘puter. 98% off my phone.I came close to leaving TTAG forever. On the fence right now…

        1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

          I run those same apps on my phone, including the VPN. Also use the voice input on the phone, much more convenient than typing.

  9. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Hell yea! Murica!

    Excellent collection.

  10. avatar Ray from Bama says:

    Unfortunately the plain language and definition of some of the words in these excellent quotes from the founders are lost on the undereducated people of today. The general populace has also been brainwashed to think of these great men as white racist slave-owners that should be ignored. Sad we’ve let it come to this.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      The antifa brown stains would be protesting at the houses of these great men if they were alive today.

      1. avatar Michael Buley says:

        They would, I hope, be summarily shot as the enemies they are.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I have no doubt, the only question would be whether they would be warned first.

  11. avatar GS650G says:

    Here are reasons why the Left want Thomas Jefferson off the ten dollar bill and out of history books and it has little to do with his slaves.

    1. avatar Cz Rider says:

      The $10 bill is Hamilton…

    2. avatar Kenneth says:

      Jefferson is on the two dollar bill. It has the signing of the Declaration of Independence on the back. Hamilton is on the ten. Maybe you should start paying some attention to the things you handle and use on a daily basis?? Then maybe you would notice some other things in the world that are of even larger consequence than the stuff you carry around on an everyday basis, and spend to live on.

  12. avatar Michael Buley says:

    Excellent post to wake up to. Guns and freedom always.

  13. avatar LarryinTX says:

    30 years ago I was addicted to Shotgun News, so I have seen all of these before, but it had been a while.
    Thanks for the memories.

  14. avatar Huntmaster says:

    The 2nd Amendment referred to the Militia, the State, the right of the people and Arms. They didn’t refer to hunting or target shooting. It’s self evident that the 2nd was about tools used for martial purposes. Weapons of war were exactly what they had in mind. They believed that only a militant and armed people could defend themselves and their natural rights against both invaders and tyrants. It’s only 27 words long. It was kept short and concise for a purpose. Shysters, tyrants, cowards and synchphants have been trying to convince us that it means something other than what is says for over two hundred years.

    1. avatar Michael Buley says:

      Excellent comment, Huntmaster.

    2. avatar CZJay says:

      Some invaders were born American citizens.

      1. avatar Kenneth says:

        Like Killary and Feinstein and Schumer and the woman just elected from NYC who thinks that Washington DC is a baseball game. We have LOTS of home grown idiots and fools.

        1. avatar Clark Kent says:

          And those folks were ELECTED; they did not just fall out of the sky into office. ‘We have met the enemy and he is us’ – Pogo.

  15. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Meanwhile, the Other Side has stated their intention to “overhaul” the Constitution – which includes the entire BOR. The battle lines have been drawn. Skirmishes have begun. Just waiting for the end game now.

    Bellum omnium contra omnes.

  16. avatar Overshoe says:

    Those pesky Founders! Always getting in the way of the Marxist revolution!

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      You mean statism.

      The Democrats and the Republicans sit down at the table to eat your lunch while you cry in the corner.

  17. avatar Sam I Am says:

    If one looks deeply, the Franklin quote was not actually associated with freedom and liberty at large (as so many expect). It was a statement buried in a dispute over the funding of militia, and a particular wealthy colonist who did not want to surrender a portion of his wealth as a means to fund the militia (he was not alone, others were already contributing money).

    As to the erosion of the Second Amendment, and the constitution in general, two things happened:
    a) The Supreme Court arrogated to itself (with congressional consent) the power to be the final arbiter of the constitution, i.e. the superior branch of government; b) the concept of “compelling government interest” (which is essentially what the constitution was designed to constrain). Neither of these two concepts has been seriously challenged, and neither has faded with time. Both concepts usurp the power of the people to be self-governed.

    As to remedy, “we the people” are content to leave government in charge of the governed; we do not punish our representatives, and our representatives do not take it upon themselves to punish (discipline, if you like) the federal courts.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Yup, was going to say the same. The Franklin quote has everything to do with taxation and nothing to do with the second amendment.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        Either way… Even 2nd Amendment supporters think people shouldn’t use their arms to protect their property. People are now fine with taxation without representation and essentially indirectly forced insurance payments.

        Both kinds of criminals have won. There so tired of winning they are going full blatant instead of covert.

  18. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Thanks. There are some quotes here that I did not have my college paper. I completed it this past summer and graduated. There is a great deal of historical 2A information out there if you look for it.

    “If you don’t spend $800 for a hand gun or $1500 for as long gun, then you don’t need a gun.”

    Selective Disarmament: No Guns For The Poor By David Kopel

    https://www.nraila.org/articles/19991006/selective-disarmament-no-guns-for-the

    And for the rich people in America they can have real machine guns:

    “he loves to show off what he calls his “colossal” gun collection. They report that he has an unbelievable collection of Class 3 firearms including M16s, belt fed machine guns and so many firearms it’s unbelievable.”

    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/03/robert-farago/nra-lobbyist-marion-hammer-gets-the-proverbial-knives-out-for-miguel-fernandez/

    But no Bump Stocks for the poor. Technology has made guns better, safer and cheaper.

    1. avatar SouthAl says:

      I remember you talking about your paper some time ago. I encourage you to submit it to TTAG.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Thanks for remembering. Its easy to write about something you are passionate about. I could have written at least 400 pages. But that’s very scary for an adviser who has to read ALL your work. Along with all their other responsibilities. And I had only so much time to write it. My dyslexia didn’t help.

        Here is the Link for anyone who cares to check it out.

        http://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/bis437/149

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Here is the Link for anyone who care to check it out.

          http://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/bis437/149

          Page says “document not found”; abstract displays.

        2. avatar Kenneth says:

          The abstract reads like something universities detest. So why wouldn’t they give a grade that the writer would be pleased with, and then drop the whole thing down the memory hole(we used to call it “the round file”, or “filed under “T”… for trash) so nobody ever gets to see it?
          I’m afraid if you really want your work to get seen, you will have to be the one to print and show it. Welcome to the real world. It isn’t at all like they described it when you first took orientation is it?

  19. avatar barnbwt says:

    It’s almost like there’s no need to debate these issues at all, is there?

    That the whole purpose of the anti’s ‘engaging’ us in discussion has been to simply delay the clear resolution that their gun control has no place in this nation as it was envisioned.

    We should really just stop talking to them, and do what we will. Let them try to impose their will by force, and make their intentions clear. Or to give on this insanity once and for all.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      We should flood the Republican party with vibrant radicals who are fleeing the collectives. While they’re still fresh we can strike back at both parties for the sake of the people. Allowing the Republicans to continue their tactic of procrastination has to be combated by these new party members like what happened with the NRA (before that rebellion was put down). We can wash away the bullshit if the flood is strong enough.

      If the Republicans continue to refuse, we can be one step closer to destroying the two party scam. Either way it goes, progress can occur if we refuse to be apathetic. The last remnants of the spirit of revolution must not be allowed to fade away.

      1. avatar Kenneth says:

        The only problem with that plan is the rich beat you to it a century ago. The Republicans, just FYI, are the ones in DC introducing the gun control legislation in 2018. How do you plan to get the Soros/Bloomberg/kissinger trouser pocket representatives OUT, so you can replace them with ones that live in your pocket instead? And are your pockets as big as those mentioned above? I doubt that they, being good politicians, would ever even consider living in a SMALLER pocket.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          You don’t get them out of their pockets, you get the pockets out of office. No one cares about you once you loose political power.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “That the whole purpose of the anti’s ‘engaging’ us in discussion has been to simply delay the clear resolution that their gun control has no place in this nation as it was envisioned.”

      You nailed the cogent point – the anti believe the founding of the nation was an abomination, thus nothing useful, correct, valid or laudable can come of it. Freedom and liberty that do not comport with the Demoncrat agenda are not freedom and liberty; they are hate speech and acts of hate.

      But, hey…we can find common ground with the antis, can’t we?

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        But, hey…we can find common ground with the antis, can’t we?

        Kind of, sort of, maybe.

        A lot of the anti 2A crowd are also not fans of the police. 2A supporters should have the same opinion if they know what’s best for them. The police are a barrier to retaining the right to protect life, liberty and property. One reason simply being that police replace the want for most people to own and carry a gun. So being pro police state is self defeating for 2A people.

        When you use the anti police arguments of the anti gun people it causes them to freeze up and have to choose between two things they don’t want. Without police you need guns, without guns you need police. Let them try to argue that you don’t need a offensive tool when there is no police in society with those tools. They usually resort to running away or start chanting nonsense as loudly as they can.

        So you want power to the people not the police? Great! Firepower to the people it is.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “When you use the anti police arguments of the anti gun people it causes them to freeze up and have to choose between two things they don’t want. ”

          Great idea !!

          Oh….

          I already thought of that, before I forgot I thought of that.

        2. avatar Clark Kent says:

          Merely having a police force does not in itself make a nation a ‘police state’. Move to North Korea if you want to experience a TRUE police state. Buh-bye!

  20. avatar VerendusAudeo says:

    The first quote has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, weaponry, or even personal freedom in a sense. In context, it is BELIEVED that Benjamin Franklin was the one who wrote the letter to the Pennsylvania colonial governor on behalf of the General Assembly. It was in regards to a tax dispute. The Assembly repeatedly approved a tax on Penn family owned lands in order to pay for frontier defense, but the governor was instructed to veto every time by the Penn family. When Franklin mentioned purchasing temporary security, he meant it quite literally. The Penns offered a meager lump sum to pay for defense rather than pay taxes. The essential liberty that would be traded away was self-governance and the right to pass the tax. I don’t take issue with freedom, but it’s just important to take things in context. Like that inspirational quote about how, “those who mind don’t matter and those who matter don’t mind”. That quote is actually about the seating arrangements at some guy’s dinner parties.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Involuntary collection of property [taxation] is a form of theft.

      If a human does not want to pay for a service of protection then protection must be provided by oneself.

      I rather it be “life, liberty and property” instead of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

      If you give the government the power to take your property by force, they will seek to own it all for themselves using their police and military apparatus, of which you funded into existence.

      There is nothing wrong with government acquiring actual donations to provide a product or service. Many people would voluntarily contribute to lessen the expense on themselves, others would rather provide for themselves as they see fit.

      A just government works on voluntarism and accountability. If that government is to accept money to provide schooling to the contributors, they will also provide a detailed accounting freely available to the public of the amount of funds raised and how those funds were spent.

  21. avatar el Possum Guapo Standartenfuher " they think we're making pizza's Oberst von Burn says:

    They may have said a lot of cool stuff but artist they ain’t. Right bottom of the painting, the legs of those two guys is messed up, looks to me like one guy with three legs.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      So you be staring at his third leg?

      1. avatar RidgeRunner says:

        you got me laughing on that one.

  22. avatar Boba Fett says:

    ““Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
    – William Pitt (the Younger), speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783”

    WHAT DO YOU NEED AN AR-15 FOR??!?!!

  23. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

    “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…. [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)

  24. avatar Craig in IA says:

    Heck, all a bunch of old dead white guys… Not a one of ’em even had a Facebook account or knew how to text… 🙂

  25. avatar TX223 says:

    “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty . . . Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
    – Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

    This has already taken place after the civil war. The only constitutional militias are the people, and Texas State Guard.

  26. avatar IAmNotTheHulk says:

    Brilliant! Don’t mess with success!

  27. avatar Jim Macklin says:

    Some history explained.

    The Boston Tea Party prompted King George to send about 10,000 British soldiers to occupy Boston. The City of Boston’s population increased 40% and the British soldiers were assigned to the homes of each resident.
    Not only did the British sleep and eat, the services a soldier needs were provided by the home owners. Laundry, cooking, were demanded.
    The people of the Boston area were trapped with one escape. The British had required the people to serve in the King’s Militia to defend against the French and the Indians. So the people formed their own private militia that the King and his Generals did not know about. They called themselves Minutemen.
    In 1775 the Minutemen and their spies learned that the British Army was going to take the short march to Concord and Lexington to confiscate the arms, which included muskets, gun powder, swords and even flints, to prevent further resistance to the King’s orders.
    The Minutemen met the British Army along the roads to protect the arms the people would need to resist the King. The war was on April 19, 1775.
    A year later the people wrote The Declaration of Independence, listing the grievances that caused the rebellion. The reason and need for “Arms” was included as a right and a duty of citizenship as a final resort when politics failed to preserve rights and freedom.
    It took until 1787 for the people to get around to creating the United States of America with a new Constitution.
    Not everybody was satisfied with the new Constitution, in particular Patrick Henry. Henry said that the protections of the people’s rights was inadequate because the militia was in control of the Congress since the Congress would appoint officers and provide arms for the militia. Henry pointed out that if Congress or the President became tyrannical the check and balance of a militia on tyrants would not work if the right to keep and bear arms was ultimately the governments.
    A Bill of Rights was demanded and the Congress set to work writing a Bill of Rights which included most of the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence.
    Soldiers could not be housed in private homes and the people were in control of the arms that might be needed to prevent a tyrant from destroying the country.
    So the Second Amendment says that the people get to keep militarily useful arms, ammunition and such items in order to preserve freedom and the Constitution.
    Beginning around 1930 government began restricting the rights of the people to have military type arms.
    It sounded good, reduce crime which had increased and become organized providing alcohol and augmented by Ford motor cars.
    Beginning in the 1960s Arms that were not “sporting” were attacked.
    Are politicians trying to prevent crime or enable a tyrant to fundamentally change America?

    Jim Macklin
    Wichita, KS-
    The People think the Constitution protects their Rights.
    Government sees the Constitution as an Obstacle to be Overcome.

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state ? [well yes, therefore]
    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email