Liberal Senator Kerry (Dem) pushes for more gun control

The intent of the founders is less than clear and those on each side of the issue can point to plenty of historical context to support their positions. Take a look at the dissent in the latest SCOUTS case for example.

This is why I hate original intent arguments as a general matter. People on either side can almost always dig up a modicum of historical evidence to support their positions that is largely results oriented rather than an effort to get to the truth to the extent that there is only one.
Less than clear? Only to a fuzz brained idiot who hides themselves from the realities of our history.

Here's a challenge: I will give below some quotes sustaining the open interpretation of the 2nd amendment. You find ONE counter quote for every FIVE that I post. HOWEVER, they must be quotes from the same period in time -- ie: when the BOR were being drafted, contemplated, and added to the Constitution, and/or from those who were involved with the process. Quotes from historically illiterate idiots 200 years later do not count. Claiming that someone's opinion in the latest SCOUTS case somehow refutes the founder's stated intentions is plain assed stupid.

1) "The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" - (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)

2) "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334

3) "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788)

4) "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, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

5) "...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

6) "...but if 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 use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)(this one is strong proof the founders intended the citizenry to have access to the same weapons as soldiers have. If the soldiers' weapons change, so do those of the citizenry.)

7) "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

8) "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 in 'Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym 'A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

9) "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The 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, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788) (another strong indicator that the arms of a common soldier should also be available to the citizenry.)

10) "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

11) "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788)

12) "The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

13) "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry)

14) "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts)

15) "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787)

16) "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson) (And there it is: THE reason for the existence of the 2nd Amendment.)

17) "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington) (one of my favorites!)

18) "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, 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 the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, 1788)

19) "Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. Thus, there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." (John Trenchard paraphrasing Aristotle)

20) "What country can preserve it's 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 to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787)

21) "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823)

22) "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of 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 bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787)

23) "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government" (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #28)

24) "One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." (Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796)

25) "We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed" (Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824)

There ya go. All you need do is find FIVE quotes from the people of the time that refute the above declarations which CLEARLY outline that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people the recourse of force against a encroaching tyranny from their own government.

Are you up to it?
 
Last edited:
Why do we all agree that freedom of speach can be infringed, but the right to bear arms cannot.
No one has the right to deliberately put others in danger without just cause. Deliberately causing panic, which is known to result in unnecessary injury, is such a case.

However, to address the issue of "yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater", no one proposes barring you from entering the theater and speaking, just in case you may want to yell "fire". Usurpation of rights in advance of their abuse under the excuse of public safety is the hallmark of tyranny.

The mere possession of firearms of any kind is no more a threat to you than someone walking into a crowded theater.
 
I'd be curious what your interpretation of "tyranny" is. If a gov't is popularly elected (like some current examples I can think of), that term doesn't really apply.
In the first place, yes a popularly elected government CAN be tyrannnical against the minority that did not elect them.

In the second place, a popularly elected government does not necessarily remain through popular support. (Or have you forgotten Nazi Germany, led by a man who was popularly elected?)

Third: our CURRENT government may not be tyrannical, but can you guarantee the same about a government 20 years from now? 50 years? 100 years? There is but ONE guarantee our government never becomes a full blown tyranny, and that is to maintain the right - and capability - to forcefully revolt if/when they ever try. Take away the right to arms NOW because you feel "safe" under the current government, a future tyranny sure as hell ain't gonna give that right back before they take over.
 
sure it does. A body politic can be voted in with 90% of the popular vote and still be tyrannical against the other 10%. Part of what the constitution is supposed to do is protect that 10% from majority oppression.

It would be an utterly futile attempt. A much better strategy than the carnage and anarchy you consider necessary would simply be to educate people to have respect for the minority - which is why most democracies are stable. Not because of guns. All the guns in the world do not guarantee freedom, and proponents of fascism can use them just as equally as proponents of liberalism.
 
There is but ONE guarantee our government never becomes a full blown tyranny, and that is to maintain the right - and capability - to forcefully revolt if/when they ever try. Take away the right to arms NOW because you feel "safe" under the current government, a future tyranny sure as hell ain't gonna give that right back before they take over.

How is this in any way a guarantee against tyranny? A small minority with guns could just as easily take control and impose fascism as rise up and kill millions of people to stop the horrors of gay marriage from being unleashed upon the population. It's an idiotic idea, the idea that revolution protects freedom, because revolution is in no way, shape, or form connected with freedom. Revolution has no values.
 
It would be an utterly futile attempt. A much better strategy than the carnage and anarchy you consider necessary would simply be to educate people to have respect for the minority - which is why most democracies are stable. Not because of guns. All the guns in the world do not guarantee freedom, and proponents of fascism can use them just as equally as proponents of liberalism.


we are NOT a democracy, we are a Republic..don't they teach that in school anymore..and what does showing respect to minorities have to do with fighting a tyrant Government.?
 
Last edited:
we are NOT a democracy, we are a Republic..don't they teach that in school anymore..

They've never taught that in school. Only conservatives see the difference. "Republic" is where evil conservatism is enshrined by a constitution, democracy is allowed to change at will between conservatism and freedom.
 
They've never taught that in school. Only conservatives see the difference. "Republic" is where evil conservatism is enshrined by a constitution, democracy is allowed to change at will between conservatism and freedom.

well too bad for you....we still live in a REPUBLIC..our founding fathers specified it that way to protect us from people like you and your silly ideas.
 
It would be an utterly futile attempt.
Explain why you think that.

A much better strategy than the carnage and anarchy you consider necessary would simply be to educate people to have respect for the minority - which is why most democracies are stable. Not because of guns.
Education is outlawed and perpetrators caught teaching about the old ways of freedom and liberty are shot on sight. Now what do you do?


All the guns in the world do not guarantee freedom, and proponents of fascism can use them just as equally as proponents of liberalism.
The only guarantee is slavery or death if you do not fight for your freedoms.
 
How is this in any way a guarantee against tyranny? A small minority with guns could just as easily take control and impose fascism as rise up and kill millions of people to stop the horrors of gay marriage from being unleashed upon the population. It's an idiotic idea, the idea that revolution protects freedom, because revolution is in no way, shape, or form connected with freedom. Revolution has no values.
Revolution has no value? Ever heard of the American Revolution? You know, the one that created the nation you live in? You are either a troll or the most profoundly ignorant fuck in the universe. Do you even have the ability to walk upright?

No, a small minority can NOT "take control and impose fascism" because the larger majority of equally armed people (unless mindless totalitarians fucks like you get your way) will prevent them. No nation in all of history has had a totalitarian regime imposed on them without first disarming the people.
 
No one has the right to deliberately put others in danger without just cause. Deliberately causing panic, which is known to result in unnecessary injury, is such a case.

However, to address the issue of "yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater", no one proposes barring you from entering the theater and speaking, just in case you may want to yell "fire". Usurpation of rights in advance of their abuse under the excuse of public safety is the hallmark of tyranny.

The mere possession of firearms of any kind is no more a threat to you than someone walking into a crowded theater.

You must give up your voice box because you might yell "fire!" :)
 
The fire example is stupid, you cannot go into someone's private home and yell fire or perhaps swear words, or use your gun in any manner or even bring it in if they deign it not welcome. Nor can you go in a private movie theater and do any of that.
Private property rights are a natural check on the extremes of other rights.
 
The fire example is stupid, you cannot go into someone's private home and yell fire or perhaps swear words, or use your gun in any manner or even bring it in if they deign it not welcome. Nor can you go in a private movie theater and do any of that.
Private property rights are a natural check on the extremes of other rights.

OK, let me fix my statement from above:

You must give up your voice box because you might yell "fire!" in a crowded theater which would be illegal anyway. :)
 
Back
Top