[Petersweeney]

Yep, thanks to the British Crown's "fake news" censorship zar at the time, they couldn't even use the internet to drop their passive aggressive, pseudo woke, virtue signaling post....



Come back from the edge I’d hate to see you get bumped for a month like I did for saying the B word

[amexsbow]

Originally Posted by NoMo50

Yes, words may have different interpretations today than in the 18th century. But, intelligent people can still decipher the intent of the framers. Two words in the 2nd Amendment continuously come under scrutiny: regulated and militia.

Some will try to argue that arms only belong in the hands of a militia, often defined as the armed forces or the National Guard. They also say arms must be tightly regulated, or controlled. But, in the context of 18th century usage, those terms meant something else entirely. The term militia referred to all able bodied males over the age of 16. In context, the word regulated meant "well stocked," or "properly outfitted." Knowing what our young country had lived through, it is simple to discern the intent of the Founding Fathers. They wanted to ensure that the citizenry would never again fall under the boot of a tyrant. Giving the people the absolute right to have the means to oppose an oppressive ruler was front and center in their minds.

There is a reason the 2nd Amendment was so high on the list, right below freedom of speech, the press, and religion. It exists to guarantee a means to enforce our bill of rights.

The problem with a lot of the people who demand taking away the right to arm and defend oneself is their lack of understanding what happens in the real world. This is what I learned as a retired L.E.O.

[midiwiz]

Originally Posted by justjim

“Arms” were definitely different then than now. Careful this could quickly get political.

already did before you posted it, that was the original intent..

[Kgcetm]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Amazon.com

The weapons Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, and others considered as "arms" are far different from the arms of 2022.

And the point to this would be?

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by A-2-56

I think that you were very much correct until the end. The founders believed that the citizenry should be armed so as to be capable of setting the government right again when they have become corrupt or out of line with the Constitution.
They wanted the government to fear the prople not the other way around. The standing army that we have now serves against that purpose.
We keep it because we use it for global policing either good or bad can be argued.

Some of the founders did. Not all. Eisenhower wanted us about the military industrial complex, we should have listened.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Kgcetm

And the point to this would be?

The point is, that then they did not think about Nukes. Should we allow citizens have nukes?

Okay, I will assume you are going to answer no. Then, I (and over Hal fthe country) think citizens should have pea shooters. Now, where in between those two should be be?

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by amexsbow

The problem with a lot of the people who demand taking away the right to arm and defend oneself is their lack of understanding what happens in the real world. This is what I learned as a retired L.E.O.

Well, I could say the opposite is true, since we are the country with massive numbers of guns and we are the country with all the gun related deaths. It seems the rest of the world doesn't have that problem.

Maybe it is just because all Americans are crazy?

[Speedie]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

https://www.amazon.com/TIME-LIFE-His.../dp/1683304314

The weapons Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, and others considered as "arms" are far different from the arms of 2022.

Citizens with weapons was designed to allow them to protect themselves from government tyranny or a dictator. Same reasons are valid today

[NoMo50]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Some of the founders did. Not all. Eisenhower wanted us about the military industrial complex, we should have listened.

Wow. I must have been absent that day in history class. Didn't realize that Eisenhower was one of the Founding Fathers!

And, what does the growth of the military industrial complex have to do with the private ownership of firearms?

[LG999]

OP, yes, today’s weapons are different. No argument there.

What is your specific question or what is the specific point you want to make?

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by NoMo50

Wow. I must have been absent that day in history class. Didn't realize that Eisenhower was one of the Founding Fathers!

And, what does the growth of the military industrial complex have to do with the private ownership of firearms?

Snarky remarks are not flattering, they just reflect on YOU.

I was obviously responding to a previous post about how the military no longer serves its purpose.

Reading comprehension is difficult, but worth the effort.

[ORJohnny]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

The fact that there was so much change from then to now is why they included the ability to amend the constitution - foresight.

Sadly at this point, amending the constitution is almost impossible - at least expecting the politicians to do it. So, if there is something we feel needs to be updated WE have to do it ourselves which is also an option.

So, what did they mean by "arms", I firmly believe they meant arms sufficient to protect the government from loyalists. And the reason they chose that route was because they could not afford (and did not want) a standing army. That too has changed. So, it could be argued, if that was the primary reason, that the justification no longer exists.

In short, the Second Amendment protects our rights to all the others, and the tyranny that may be imposed by an over reach of an administration.

[Blackbird45]

Originally Posted by Speedie

Citizens with weapons was designed to allow them to protect themselves from government tyranny or a dictator. Same reasons are valid today

This notion that armed citizens can stop this government if it becomes tyrannical is a joke and something from a Hollywood movie. You show up with a gun the ruler shows up with a drone. You kill one of theirs they take out your entire block. The war in Ukraine is a perfect example, even with what weapons they had they had to reach out for more. Who do you think will come to our help if we end up in a revolution.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by A-2-56

I think that you were very much correct until the end. The founders believed that the citizenry should be armed so as to be capable of setting the government right again when they have become corrupt or out of line with the Constitution.
They wanted the government to fear the prople not the other way around. The standing army that we have now serves against that purpose.
We keep it because we use it for global policing either good or bad can be argued.

"Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty." (Thomas Jefferson--among others).

So true. Our system was set up so that the government SERVES the people, not the other way around.

[Scorpyo]

Ah, what did the founding fathers consider......?

Sorry I wasn't there so I really don't know what they considered. It seems many folks have opinions as to what they considered and you know the phrase "opinions are like...." If it's not specifically written then the Supreme Court makes the determination of what they believed the founding fathers considered. "But the history is written and supports my theory." Sorry, but I didn't get this weeks rewritten version of history. I'll wait until next week I'm sure it will have changed.
Imagine for a moment if Ukraine had copied our Constitution. Besides having all those horrible lethal weapons in the hands of their citizens they probably would have kept those disgusting nuclear missiles. (Can't imagine who convinced them to give them up. I hope whoever did regrets it although I would bet they don't). Do you think they would have been invaded? Assured mutual mass destruction, probably not. But this is 2022 and the US would never be invaded or be subjected to tyranny. How long has it been that mankind (I mean personkind) has been in conflict or war? I'll check next week's rewritten history but if I were to guess today I would say forever. So why would I believe that the future would be any different. Maybe that might be something the founding fathers considered.