[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Funny, the way I have read it is that the laws of Australia, and all other 1st world countries (except for the US) have actually stopped many mass murder events in their countries. The US is, BY FAR. at the top of the class for gun violence. We are number 1 thanks to our patriotic gun makers. And the 2nd Amendment being loosely worded may have contributed to that outcome. People can conjure up patriotic emotions speaking about the 2nd Amendment. But, are those emotions displaced if they contribute to situations like the Uvalde child slaughter?

No other citizen in the world enjoys the level of freedom and the Liberty of Americans. Millions cross our borders seeking such freedom. The 2nd Amendment is not emotional, no more than Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The 2nd Amendment ensures you can protect the rest of your Rights.

One must also consider a comparison of authoritarianism and abuse of citizens’ individual rights.

Australia, prior to the “assault” weapons ban was a model of democracy in which individual rights and freedom of the people were respected and protected. During COVID we saw the use of force against and the beatings of peaceful protesters (as well as people who dared go to the grocery for food or medicines), extreme lockdowns, intrusion into personal communications, forced use of a personal movement tracking app, construction and use of internment camps in which COVID positive people were forced by the military to live.

Too many U.S. citizens don’t know, on April 18, 1775, British troops left Boston headed for the towns of Lexington and Concord. The next day, 15 months before the writing of the Declaration of Independence, was the first battle of the American Revolution. The British were not looking for rebels or the leaders who were advocating resistance to the Crown. They were under specific orders to seize and destroy arms and munitions believed to be hidden in the two towns.

This first battle of the Revolution was fought over gun control. The British government wanted to seize the lawfully owned firearms of the colonists. If British troops could disarm the militia, there would be less of a threat to their control. This is one of the main reasons the Second Amendment was written into such a prominent place in our Bill of Rights.

Equally unknown to our citizens today is that the Constitution was conditional on the Bill of Rights. In other words, the States did not want to ratify the Constitution unless certain Rights were enshrined. The Framers could have inserted those Rights into the Constitution but chose not to for fear that in the future it might be construed that those were the only Rights that Americans – as in a parchment barrier.

Judging from what we see today, I’m certain their fear would have been realized. So, they chose the amendment process and from the original list of amendments, ten were ratified to become our Bill of Rights. For some of the Framers that was not good enough. If James Madison is the father of the Constitution, George Mason is the father of the Bill of Rights, patterned and borrowed form the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Still, George Mason, one of the most prolific debaters during the Constitution Convention, Edmund Randolf, and Elbridge Gerry refused to sign the newly written Constitution as they felt it was a flawed document. Thomas Jefferson and others would agree.

I never want the US to end up like Australia. If that happens, Liberty is dead.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

No other citizen in the world enjoys the level of freedom and the Liberty of Americans. Millions cross our borders seeking such freedom. The 2nd Amendment is not emotional, no more than Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The 2nd Amendment ensures you can protect the rest of your Rights.

One must also consider a comparison of authoritarianism and abuse of citizens’ individual rights.

Australia, prior to the “assault” weapons ban was a model of democracy in which individual rights and freedom of the people were respected and protected. During COVID we saw the use of force against and the beatings of peaceful protesters (as well as people who dared go to the grocery for food or medicines), extreme lockdowns, intrusion into personal communications, forced use of a personal movement tracking app, construction and use of internment camps in which COVID positive people were forced by the military to live.

Too many U.S. citizens don’t know, on April 18, 1775, British troops left Boston headed for the towns of Lexington and Concord. The next day, 15 months before the writing of the Declaration of Independence, was the first battle of the American Revolution. The British were not looking for rebels or the leaders who were advocating resistance to the Crown. They were under specific orders to seize and destroy arms and munitions believed to be hidden in the two towns.

This first battle of the Revolution was fought over gun control. The British government wanted to seize the lawfully owned firearms of the colonists. If British troops could disarm the militia, there would be less of a threat to their control. This is one of the main reasons the Second Amendment was written into such a prominent place in our Bill of Rights.

Equally unknown to our citizens today is that the Constitution was conditional on the Bill of Rights. In other words, the States did not want to ratify the Constitution unless certain Rights were enshrined. The Framers could have inserted those Rights into the Constitution but chose not to for fear that in the future it might be construed that those were the only Rights that Americans – as in a parchment barrier.

Judging from what we see today, I’m certain their fear would have been realized. So, they chose the amendment process and from the original list of amendments, ten were ratified to become our Bill of Rights. For some of the Framers that was not good enough. If James Madison is the father of the Constitution, George Mason is the father of the Bill of Rights, patterned and borrowed form the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Still, George Mason, one of the most prolific debaters during the Constitution Convention, Edmund Randolf, and Elbridge Gerry refused to sign the newly written Constitution as they felt it was a flawed document. Thomas Jefferson and others would agree.

I never want the US to end up like Australia. If that happens, Liberty is dead.

Thank you for the great discussion and information. There will always be arguments regarding what the authors of the Constitution and BOR "meant" when they wrote it. I do not understand why anyone would wish to tear down our country, and I do not understand how anyone would compare Australia to the U.S. as a model for Freedom. The U.S. has always been the sole model for Liberty and Freedom and those that keep looking over the fence at what they believe is greener grass should climb over that fence with all their belongings and live permanently in that "better" place. I dare say that once they climb over that fence, they will find that they will be on artificial turf and they will enjoy being grain fed by a farmer that is fattening them up for the butcher shop.
It does not matter what the creators of the original documents meant by "arms" because anyone with a lick of sense KNOWS exactly what they meant, but some just don't like it and won't like anything that might hinder their "social equality" even if it means they become cattle waiting to be slaughtered.
In my opinion, "shall not be infringed" means just that. I take it as meaning "Don't prevent me from defending my family and property."
Infringed: To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate.To defeat; invalidate.To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing.

[justjim]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Beautiful! And thanks to the writer of the post for taking the time to gather that information.

The intent of the founders was clear. Anyone who still tries to deny that will never change their point of view, regardless of the evidence supporting it.

With all do respect, the intent of the founders is arguably not clear and I think this Thread and several other similar Threads seem to validate that point. However, few hearts or minds will change by all these narratives. Fore.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

No other citizen in the world enjoys the level of freedom and the Liberty of Americans. Millions cross our borders seeking such freedom. The 2nd Amendment is not emotional, no more than Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The 2nd Amendment ensures you can protect the rest of your Rights.

One must also consider a comparison of authoritarianism and abuse of citizens’ individual rights.

Australia, prior to the “assault” weapons ban was a model of democracy in which individual rights and freedom of the people were respected and protected. During COVID we saw the use of force against and the beatings of peaceful protesters (as well as people who dared go to the grocery for food or medicines), extreme lockdowns, intrusion into personal communications, forced use of a personal movement tracking app, construction and use of internment camps in which COVID positive people were forced by the military to live.

Too many U.S. citizens don’t know, on April 18, 1775, British troops left Boston headed for the towns of Lexington and Concord. The next day, 15 months before the writing of the Declaration of Independence, was the first battle of the American Revolution. The British were not looking for rebels or the leaders who were advocating resistance to the Crown. They were under specific orders to seize and destroy arms and munitions believed to be hidden in the two towns.

This first battle of the Revolution was fought over gun control. The British government wanted to seize the lawfully owned firearms of the colonists. If British troops could disarm the militia, there would be less of a threat to their control. This is one of the main reasons the Second Amendment was written into such a prominent place in our Bill of Rights.

Equally unknown to our citizens today is that the Constitution was conditional on the Bill of Rights. In other words, the States did not want to ratify the Constitution unless certain Rights were enshrined. The Framers could have inserted those Rights into the Constitution but chose not to for fear that in the future it might be construed that those were the only Rights that Americans – as in a parchment barrier.

Judging from what we see today, I’m certain their fear would have been realized. So, they chose the amendment process and from the original list of amendments, ten were ratified to become our Bill of Rights. For some of the Framers that was not good enough. If James Madison is the father of the Constitution, George Mason is the father of the Bill of Rights, patterned and borrowed form the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Still, George Mason, one of the most prolific debaters during the Constitution Convention, Edmund Randolf, and Elbridge Gerry refused to sign the newly written Constitution as they felt it was a flawed document. Thomas Jefferson and others would agree.

I never want the US to end up like Australia. If that happens, Liberty is dead.

There are WORLD lists that rate countries according to each country's QUALITY OF LIFE for its citizens. The US was in the top 10 right after WW2. Then gradually the US slipped to between 20th and 35th for some variables like UPWARD MOBILITY. These lists portray the US CORRECTLY with respect to other countries. Most people in the US would LIKE to believe that the US is best at EVERYTHING. It is only natural that people feel patriotic toward THEIR country and believe that it is the best. France believes that France is the best country in the world. It is only natural. If anyone wants to know where their particular country rates on any particular quality - they have to go to the IMPARTIAL world lists.

Incidentally, the Scandanavian countries and Switzerland dominate the top 10 of those lists. So, I believe that they have the highest level of "freedom and Liberty". And I do NOT, personally, feel that "millions of illegal immigrants" entering the US is a good thing because they will bring with them the ACCEPTANCE of the authoritarian societies that they are escaping from. And the US has too much population already!

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

There are WORLD lists that rate countries according to each country's QUALITY OF LIFE for its citizens. The US was in the top 10 right after WW2. Then gradually the US slipped to between 20th and 35th for some variables like UPWARD MOBILITY. These lists portray the US CORRECTLY with respect to other countries. Most people in the US would LIKE to believe that the US is best at EVERYTHING. It is only natural that people feel patriotic toward THEIR country and believe that it is the best. France believes that France is the best country in the world. It is only natural. If anyone wants to know where their particular country rates on any particular quality - they have to go to the IMPARTIAL world lists.

Incidentally, the Scandanavian countries and Switzerland dominate the top 10 of those lists. So, I believe that they have the highest level of "freedom and Liberty". And I do NOT, personally, feel that "millions of illegal immigrants" entering the US is a good thing because they will bring with them the ACCEPTANCE of the authoritarian societies that they are escaping from. And the US has too much population already!

Sorry, but I see NO correlation between all the other countries that you believe are better than ours and the subject regarding the 2nd Amendment. Are you suggesting that since they do not have a 2nd Amendment, that they are better than ours? Or, are you attempting to have this thread shut down too?

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

There are WORLD lists that rate countries according to each country's QUALITY OF LIFE for its citizens. The US was in the top 10 right after WW2. Then gradually the US slipped to between 20th and 35th for some variables like UPWARD MOBILITY. These lists portray the US CORRECTLY with respect to other countries. Most people in the US would LIKE to believe that the US is best at EVERYTHING. It is only natural that people feel patriotic toward THEIR country and believe that it is the best. France believes that France is the best country in the world. It is only natural. If anyone wants to know where their particular country rates on any particular quality - they have to go to the IMPARTIAL world lists.

Incidentally, the Scandanavian countries and Switzerland dominate the top 10 of those lists. So, I believe that they have the highest level of "freedom and Liberty". And I do NOT, personally, feel that "millions of illegal immigrants" entering the US is a good thing because they will bring with them the ACCEPTANCE of the authoritarian societies that they are escaping from. And the US has too much population already!

Well, completely change the topic. If you resort to a "list", just know it is not impartial.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by justjim

With all do respect, the intent of the founders is arguably not clear and I think this Thread and several other similar Threads seem to validate that point. However, few hearts or minds will change by all these narratives. Fore.

I believe that in all the papers, letters, etc that the founders have written, there is plenty of evidence of what the founders meant in the 2nd Amendment. Sarah has posted plenty of quotes that should be very clear evidence of their purpose. I see absolutely no reason for confusion. The only thing that this thread "validates" is that some folks fear firearms and wish to ban them by use of confusion or an attempt to confuse the meaning of the Amendment.

[Normal]

Obviously someone wants to peddle the same old Bologna about how the founding fathers would let you have muskets, blunderbusses, cannons and grenades, but they didn’t want you to have their equivalents of today. They want you to believe in their beliefs kind of like Harry Krishnas, and avid Charles Manson followers did. Then they will go on and on with the militia blurb etc. and attempt to draw unwilling freedom enthusiasts into their weeds of government authoritarian mindset.

The bottom line, our government and foreign enemies need to know there is at least some kind of physical check when they attempt to remove our other freedoms. If they don’t like it, they can move.

Beware of the day when the government can just dictate laws on us all with zero means of civilian retaliation. That day will have a much more devastating effect on us all.