What would our forefathers do if...

yeap


but they were not enough to get him elected without the republicans cheating their asses off
 
DBCooper said:
It is my personal belief that if our forefathers were here today, they would ban weapons which could be used to cause a massacre. I think they would find in 2018 there is simply no need for them. This part of the bill of rights is outdated. A well regulated militia doesn't serve much of a purpose against nuclear weapons or an air force. We the people would surely meet our demise with only guns.
Click to expand...

Thats why we've won in Afghanistan isn't it? They couldn't stand up to our air force and nukes.
 
Damocles said:
They would find and bring the kids shooting up the schools to justice, considering that schools at that time were usually privately run they would likely have a parent or two hang out at the schoolhouse with a gun to ensure the safety of the kids.

Let's think about the time where the schoolhouses were endangered by native populations who didn't want them there. They kept them safe by hardening the target and/or legalizing hunting of those "enemy" native populations. (See Enoch Brown School Massacre).
Click to expand...


Maybe they could Hire or Consult with Chicago Schools ... they do all their Shooting out side the Schools where all the Chicago Law Enforcement are riding around in cars not stopping any Shootings in the streets. Because we don't hear of this crap happening in Chicago Schools.

Maybe it's because they're already know who's the Badest Ass Packing :laugh:
 
Quetzalcoatl said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
Click to expand...

Thanks. From your article:

" While the detachable air reservoir was capable of around 30 shots it took nearly 1,500 strokes of a hand pump to fill those reservoirs. Later, a wagon-mounted pump was provided. The reservoirs, made from hammered sheet iron held together with rivets and sealed by brazing, proved very difficult to manufacture using the techniques of the period and were always in short supply."

Hardly a weapon that could be handily used in a modern school or public venue massacre, is it? It wouldn't even work well in ancient times battle, unless the operator had a *lot* of covering fire while he pumped it up.

I repeat -- the framers of the 2nd Amendment did not foresee the advance of weaponry to the stage that it is now.
 
A more apt equivalent would be that student showed up a school with a cannon and started bombarding the place. Do you think the founding fathers would have had a problem banning the private sales of cannons. Do you think they would have had an issue with putting an age restriction on the purchase of cannon?
 
smb said:
A more apt equivalent would be that student showed up a school with a cannon and started bombarding the place. Do you think the founding fathers would have had a problem banning the private sales of cannons. Do you think they would have had an issue with putting an age restriction on the purchase of cannon?
Click to expand...

The founding fathers would have left this matter for the state and local authorities to handle and not passed federal laws to deal with it.
 
Flash said:
The founding fathers would have left this matter for the state and local authorities to handle and not passed federal laws to deal with it.
Click to expand...

BULLSHIT. Like they did the "Whiskey Rebellion?" Like they did with "Fries Rebellion?" Learn some history then come back.
 
smb said:
A more apt equivalent would be that student showed up a school with a cannon and started bombarding the place. Do you think the founding fathers would have had a problem banning the private sales of cannons. Do you think they would have had an issue with putting an age restriction on the purchase of cannon?
Click to expand...

The Continental Army was supplied with privately owned cannons (and warships) through out the duration of the war. It was 100% expected that such things would be privately owned and is implied in Article 1, Section 8.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Thanks. From your article:

" While the detachable air reservoir was capable of around 30 shots it took nearly 1,500 strokes of a hand pump to fill those reservoirs. Later, a wagon-mounted pump was provided. The reservoirs, made from hammered sheet iron held together with rivets and sealed by brazing, proved very difficult to manufacture using the techniques of the period and were always in short supply."

Hardly a weapon that could be handily used in a modern school or public venue massacre, is it? It wouldn't even work well in ancient times battle, unless the operator had a *lot* of covering fire while he pumped it up.

I repeat -- the framers of the 2nd Amendment did not foresee the advance of weaponry to the stage that it is now.
Click to expand...
The Austrians used them to fight the Napoleonic wars. Your supposition that they "didn't work well" isn't backed up by anything other than your conjecture and ignorance in the matter.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I don't think that they would ban guns. I see them doing something like many European countries do.... allow guns used for sports and for hunting, license the users, and require safety and competence exams to continue to own them. In fact, I suspect strongly that is what is behind the "well-regulated militia" phrase. They did not want a standing army. They *did* want citizens to be able to keep and bear arms and to form their own protective local groups in lieu of said army. The reasoning: 1) Armies cost money, and 2) (and probably most important to them) armies can be co-opted and used against the citizenry.
Click to expand...

They expected all citizens to be raised to be proficient eith firearms. Instead of banning or restricting firearms, they would have tried to figure out why those kids were shooting up the schools and then tried to address that. They were smarter than we are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top