Our founding fathers would be ashamed of us.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Our founding fathers would be ashamed of us.

  1. #1

    Post Our founding fathers would be ashamed of us.

    To quote a great man Ron Paul "Our founding fathers would be ashamed of us for what we're putting up with".

    In 1776 the congress of the 13 colonies (now called states) signed the Declaration of Independence which sparked the war between the United States of America and Great Britain. In this war our founders gave their life so to speak, they left their families for years and lived and breathed only for the United States. The men who died were only countryman of all occupations and none were professional soldiers.

    An estimated 25,000 Americans died in this war for freedom!

    After the revolutionary war the President had no desire to limit firearms. George Washington is quoted as saying "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth". While many state that Washington did not say those words- they are also the ones who believe that firearm ownership is limited to the militia only- If you're reading this I'll assume you believe what I do that it is an individual right.

    (A bit of history first- now to get to the point)

    Through hundreds of years our citizens have lost the value of liberty and freedom, become accustom to it, expected it. Most of us are so in to our Ipod that we don't even watch the biased news any more much less read through legislation that is being proposed. Too many acts of tyranny have been passed by few and protested by many after the fact.

    To preserve our freedoms the answer is not by forcible means. It is neccessary that we take part in the politics of our community. We need to keep ourselves informed of any pending legislation (don't look to just the NRA for this) against or even for firearm ownership. We need to debunk the lies that infect people influenced by organizations like the brady bunch (or campaign). We need to conduct ourselves as intelligent human beings rather than gun-toting morons. Criminals make a bad name for guns- we need to all demonstrate safe and responsible firearm ownership, not only for our own safety, or our families, but to show that we do not need nor want the Government's assistance in regulating our arms.

    Laws are made to stop problems- the problem is that no one is looking for the root cause. Educate yourself on the true facts of "gun violence, gun crimes, gun tragedies".

    If your friends or family or state representative is against the Second Amendment that you and I beleive in I reccomend a free E-book that debunks the lies associated with firearm myths with statistical information- VERY interesting read.

    Gun Facts - Your guide for debunking gun control myth

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    1,225
    Looks like a good resource... thanks for posting. By the way, welcome to the site!

  4. #3

    Thanks

    I've been perusing the forums since it was Packing.org just never much of an active member- glad to finally take part. I'm in New Mexico a pro-2A state for the most and will be posting news from here.

  5. #4
    welcome to the forum and thanks for the post!
    You can have my freedom as soon as I'm done with it!!!

  6. #5
    Welcome and thanks for the post. Yes our founding fathers would be very ashamed at what has become of the republic they fought so hard for. Much like Esau in the Old Testament that sold his birth right for a little food many Americans have traded the freedoms that were gained with the blood of patriots for socialistic handouts from the Marxists that have high jacked our country.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  7. #6
    The would be ashamed for a lot of reasons. My law professor explained the current struggle with interpreting the constitution basically by saying that the critics arguments in lamen is that the authors of the constitution could not have foreseen the future. Critics will argue that they couldn't imagine a future of full automatic weapons etc.. etc.. In my mind this is irrelevant. The constitution says what it says and nobody should try to analyze what our forefathers were thinking when they wrote it. Those men knew what they were writing and its a shame some people think they know better then the men who wrote it.

  8. I just want to be on the jury for the combat experienced war vet that comes home from The Iraq or Afghanistan war and decides that the enemy is still present in the Congress of the Unted States and elects to finish the job.

    PTSD sometimes can be a good thing.

    If we can have jury nullification for O.J. we can damn sure have it for any vet that decides to uphold his oath to protect us from enemies of the domestic nature.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by ugarolla View Post
    The would be ashamed for a lot of reasons. My law professor explained the current struggle with interpreting the constitution basically by saying that the critics arguments in lamen is that the authors of the constitution could not have foreseen the future. Critics will argue that they couldn't imagine a future of full automatic weapons etc.. etc.. In my mind this is irrelevant. The constitution says what it says and nobody should try to analyze what our forefathers were thinking when they wrote it. Those men knew what they were writing and its a shame some people think they know better then the men who wrote it.
    I agree and ALL of us our guilty in trying to "sway" for our own advantage the wording of the constitution. I am about to again say why I beleive the founders knew of the importance of the 2nd amendment. The founders were very much aware that new inventions would come- after all Ben Franklin was an inventor amongst other things. If the founders wanted people only to be equipped with muzzle loaders I personally don't think they would have chosen the word "ARMS" as ARMS can mean any type of weapon from Bow & Arrow to sticks, stones, and automatic weapons.

    Also, people argue that they only wanted the milita to have arms. Some say the National Guard is the milita. Take into consideration that the men that fought and died in the revolutionary war were not professional soldiers and were not organized as an army, but they were called the Militia. They were farmers, doctors, and hunters. The National Guard may be called to duty by the federal government without the permission of the Governor from which the National Guard is stationed IE: The NM National Guard can be called to duty without the Governor of NM's permission.

    The militia back then was "EVERY ABLE BODY" and was not of voluntary association. IE: If you were able it didn't matter if you were "enrolled" in the militia you WERE A MILITIA MAN.
    REVOLUTION: Idea's spread they cannot stop them an idea who's time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government!- Ron Paul

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Landavazoaj View Post
    I agree and ALL of us our guilty in trying to "sway" for our own advantage the wording of the constitution. I am about to again say why I beleive the founders knew of the importance of the 2nd amendment. The founders were very much aware that new inventions would come- after all Ben Franklin was an inventor amongst other things. If the founders wanted people only to be equipped with muzzle loaders I personally don't think they would have chosen the word "ARMS" as ARMS can mean any type of weapon from Bow & Arrow to sticks, stones, and automatic weapons.

    Also, people argue that they only wanted the milita to have arms. Some say the National Guard is the milita. Take into consideration that the men that fought and died in the revolutionary war were not professional soldiers and were not organized as an army, but they were called the Militia. They were farmers, doctors, and hunters. The National Guard may be called to duty by the federal government without the permission of the Governor from which the National Guard is stationed IE: The NM National Guard can be called to duty without the Governor of NM's permission.

    The militia back then was "EVERY ABLE BODY" and was not of voluntary association. IE: If you were able it didn't matter if you were "enrolled" in the militia you WERE A MILITIA MAN.


    Good point and by the way when you consider that the majority of our National Guard has been called up and activated for our war on terror it kinda leaves the states without a so called "militia" or a greatly reduced amount of manpower therefore we as citizens may be called on some day to back up or replace our National Guard for home defense or to asist in a natural disaster. Does the government expect us to respond unarmed and untrained in the use of weapons? Would this not make another good argument as to why they wrote the 2nd amendment in the manner so written? Why should a government, of the people, by the people and for the people fear an armed citizenry?

    I even think convicted felons should have the right to keep and bear arms once they have paid their full debt to society for whatever they were convicted of. Assuming they were appropriately punished for their crime in the first place. (I will draw the line on child molesters and rapists though).

  11. #10
    Well i'm not a felon but I think to say that Felons cannot own firearms is to admit that the rehabilitation of prison is an epic failure. They are either rehabilitated or they are not there can be no half...
    REVOLUTION: Idea's spread they cannot stop them an idea who's time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government!- Ron Paul

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast