Our founding fathers would be ashamed of us.


Landavazoaj

New member
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
 

Landavazoaj

New member
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.
 

HK4U

New member
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.
 

ugarolla

New member
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.
 

FOXBARON

New member
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.
 

Landavazoaj

New member
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.
 

FOXBARON

New member
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).
 

Landavazoaj

New member
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...
 

Piece Corps

New member
Why people keep mentioning the "militia" when talking about the 2nd Amendment is beyond me. The amendment is very simple, and doesn't need deep interpretation. Let's read it together:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It does indeed mention a "well regulated militia" in the first part, but does it mention the same militia in the next part? No, it does not. It states, "...the right of the PEOPLE. IOW, it is saying that in order to provide that "well regulated Militia" it is necessary for everyone to have the right to keep and bear arms. Remember that states rights trump federal rights, so we're not talking about the Army or the National Guard.

The 2nd Amendment grants everyone the right to own and carry ARMS. This could be a pistol, a revolver, a shotgun, a rifle, a muzzle-loader, or even a machine gun.

Period!
 

Landavazoaj

New member
Militia

We are merely arguing against the fact that people say it is reserved to the militia- by saying the people are the militia...
 

utimmer43

New member
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).
The way I see it, if you are a "free man", society has decided you are no longer a threat (to include rapists etc.), and so you have the right to own, possess, buy, sell, bla bla bla. Is that to say that I think a convicted rapist or murderer should have a gun? In our current system, no. Because I don't believe that everyone who comes out of prison is rehabed.
If you are still a threat, you still belong locked up. But rather than fix the real problem, we only fix the symptom.
Symptom: threat to society possessing a gun. "Asprin": ban ALL ex-cons from possessing (regardless of threat). REAL problem: threat to society left free to roam. REAL solution: drastically change the minimum sentancing/ parol system.

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...
Which is why I believe in longer harder sentances/ more capitol punishment. I don't really think prison is for rehab, it's for punishment. But regardless, if you are still a threat, you don't leave. And if after you are convicted we believe that you will NEVER not be a threat, you either die or we lock you up and throw away the key.
 
Last edited:

Landavazoaj

New member
And I thought I was alone.

The way I see it, if you are a "free man", society has decided you are no longer a threat, and so you have the right to own, possess, buy, sell, bla bla bla. If you are still a threat, you still belong locked up. But rather than fix the real problem, we only fix the symptom.

Symptom: threat to society possessing a gun. "Asprin": ban ALL ex-cons from possessing (regardless of threat). REAL problem: threat to society left free to roam. REAL solution: drastically change the minimum sentancing/ parol system.
No, definitely not alone. I've never even received a speeding ticket (knock on wood). But I do know that people in prison are raped, beaten, and denied things that you and I take for granted every day. If prison is only a temporary solution to keep them off the streets, well i'd say that is failure and we need to make an island of cons. However, if the stance of rehabillitation is the stance our lawmakers take then full rights need to be restored to those imprisoned after their release.

Keep in mind you can petition for your rights back, but from what I understand it is nearly impossible to succeed.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,120
Messages
621,601
Members
74,100
Latest member
JDDS1215
Top