PDA

View Full Version : Article: "What Guns would the Founders Ban?"


mbuna
02-07-2011, 7:08 PM
A good article from Pajamas Media. Comments are good too. Author makes the case for "Standard" cap mags.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/what-guns-would-the-founders-ban/

JimWest
02-07-2011, 7:14 PM
A good article from Pajamas Media. Comments are good too. Author makes the case for "Standard" cap mags.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/what-guns-would-the-founders-ban/

Ha, you got me mbuna on the "standard" cap come-on. ;) Made me stop and read the article. Very interesting read. My question, however, is if the Founding Fathers were alive today would they have taken up arms by now? :confused::chris:

Veggie
02-07-2011, 7:14 PM
None. The whole purpose of 2A is to have the ability to counter the military if required.

AJAX22
02-07-2011, 7:48 PM
None,

All the arms of the revolutionary war were privatly owned...

The cannons at lexinton/concord were privately owned..

The U.S. navy was privately owned..

if you could afford it, you could park a Man-o-war on your front lawn...

Bhobbs
02-07-2011, 7:48 PM
What religions would the founders have banned? Forms of speech? I would have to say none.

G60
02-07-2011, 7:55 PM
None of them. They were fighting the most powerful military in the world.

The most ridiculous thing anyone has ever said is 'the founding fathers did not mean military weapons' when that is exactly what they meant.

Veggie
02-07-2011, 7:59 PM
Anti's will never agree that 2A was meant for anything besides personal self defense. If they agreed it was enacted to keep the military in check every argument they have would had no legs to stand on.

G60
02-07-2011, 8:06 PM
Veggie, the antis don't even want to agree that the 2a was meant for personal defense. At the very best they grudgingly admit the 2a allows arms for 'sporting' purposes, if that. Many even claim the 2a only applies to the military.

Ripon83
02-07-2011, 8:06 PM
My understanding is that the Founding Fathers intended for the second amendment to enable citizens to stand up against a tyranical government. That being said the citizenry would need weapons to match that of its government - clearly we aren't going to get personal nukes, stinger aa missiles, and TOW missiles. However I think nearly every conflict ever since the creation of the firearm - has come down to the firearm. That said I think that weapons necessary to the publics defense from the government should be and must be protected.

Legasat
02-07-2011, 8:18 PM
nuttin...absolutely nuttin...

sawchain
02-07-2011, 8:37 PM
Article stated:

No rational person is arguing that the general public should equip itself with crew-served, area-obliterating weapons, artillery, and bombs.

I am. Am I not rational or is the author wrong? How can you argue the intent of the 2A was to secure a free society and disregard crew-serve weapons? The founders specifically used crew-serve weapons against the British. Duh!

Dreaded Claymore
02-07-2011, 8:47 PM
My understanding is that the Founding Fathers intended for the second amendment to enable citizens to stand up against a tyranical government. That being said the citizenry would need weapons to match that of its government - clearly we aren't going to get personal nukes, stinger aa missiles, and TOW missiles. However I think nearly every conflict ever since the creation of the firearm - has come down to the firearm. That said I think that weapons necessary to the publics defense from the government should be and must be protected.

I'm not sure whether or not I agree with you, but you definitely have an argument. I take comfort, however, in the knowledge that while armor, strike aircraft, bombers, fighters, and helicopters can take a lot of ground, only men and women can hold it.

taperxz
02-07-2011, 9:06 PM
shoulder thing that goes up??? whatever that is but, thats all

cmichini
02-07-2011, 9:15 PM
My understanding is that the Founding Fathers intended for the second amendment to enable citizens to stand up against a tyranical government. That being said the citizenry would need weapons to match that of its government - clearly we aren't going to get personal nukes, stinger aa missiles, and TOW missiles. However I think nearly every conflict ever since the creation of the firearm - has come down to the firearm. That said I think that weapons necessary to the publics defense from the government should be and must be protected.

I'm not sure whether or not I agree with you, but you definitely have an argument. I take comfort, however, in the knowledge that while armor, strike aircraft, bombers, fighters, and helicopters can take a lot of ground, only men and women can hold it.

In my opinion, Ripon has it EXACTLY right.

To remain free men, they wrote into the basic laws of the land that the people (each right is an individual right) be provided the ability to keep and bear arms to allow themselves to remain free and to quell the rise of another tyrannical government. Notice that this amendment comes directly after the first amendment. The first amendment is the primal basis on which this country is founded (basic freedoms), and the second amendment is the means for the people to retain that freedom.

Based on this need for the people to be able to keep an out of control government in check, they should be afforded the unfettered opportunity to arm themselves in parity with that government. To me that means citizens be able to own any ARM in parity with the government. This means full auto, grenades, PRGs what have you.

However, this also puts a GRAVE responsibility on the citizenry and that is to protect this right by ensuring that it is not misused. As a result, misuse of arms, which is a core violation of this grave responsibility, should be met with grave consequences. After due process (another right), any crime committed with a firearm should be a capital offense. It's not the result of the crime (did the victim die or not) but the violation of this sacred part of the societal contract that is the core of the crime and it can not be tolerated - sooff with their heads.

Again, just the opinion of a common citizen.

five.five-six
02-07-2011, 9:18 PM
crew service guns are legal

EBR Works
02-07-2011, 10:11 PM
I just finished reading through all of the comments on this article. The guy posting as "Jonathan" is truly frightening!

Cali-Shooter
02-07-2011, 10:15 PM
None. And especially not AK-47's.

Also, great article.

kln5
02-07-2011, 10:28 PM
That is a good article. I enjoy it when the truth finally gets told. I have often said that the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves at an incredible pace. I wonder what they would think of the bb or restricted mag capacity...I think they would have kicked these bums out by now.

Plus I want my chance at buying an apache helicopter.

bohoki
02-07-2011, 10:49 PM
they would probably ban artillery greater than 60 mm

and require some paperwork for the purchase of explosive projectiles

Cali-Shooter
02-07-2011, 11:02 PM
The entire CA Gov needs a serious smackdown from the Founding Fathers themselves. The way this state has been "run" is cancerous compared to the rest of America. And NY and NJ would be considered tumorous.

mbuna
02-07-2011, 11:03 PM
Ha, you got me mbuna on the "standard" cap come-on. ;) Made me stop and read the article. Very interesting read. My question, however, is if the Founding Fathers were alive today would they have taken up arms by now? :confused::chris:

Yes, I believe the Founding Fathers would have taken up arms long ago. The challenge is that the threat is not from "without" but rather from "within".

Having within themselves an irrepressible spirit of liberty and independence, but knowing the tragedy of what happened the last time we raised arms against one another, I think they would be compelled under present circumstances to express themselves through severe civil disobedience. They staked their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to gain liberty. I'm sure they'd be willing to do a little jail time today to reset those liberties before they are lost.

Civilitant
02-07-2011, 11:15 PM
+1 on the apache

Cali-Shooter
02-07-2011, 11:23 PM
+1 on the apache

Count me in as the turret gunner :83:

forgiven
02-07-2011, 11:24 PM
Diane Feinstein if she still had hers.

Carnivore
02-07-2011, 11:47 PM
I just finished reading through all of the comments on this article. The guy posting as "Jonathan" is truly frightening!

Ya and even if he is just a troll there are people that think just like him out there....and they vote in this state. NOW I know how Boxer got re-elected

rabagley
02-08-2011, 12:04 AM
I'm a rational person, and I will argue for civilian ownership of artillery and crew served weapons.

Specifically, I want to pintle mount a HK GMG on the rear deck of my boat. I promise not to load it until I enter waters where pirates are a known hazard.

I do agree that area effect weapons are probably not covered by 2A. Those are weapons of diplomats, not soldiers.

drclark
02-08-2011, 12:22 AM
I don't believe the 2A was as much about resisting the government as much as we woukd like to. The founding fathers didn't intend that the federal government maintain a large standing army. The concern is that a large military force paid by federal tax $$ would be more loyal to the government than the citizenry. Part of the 2A was to enable the citizenry to form state and local militias using privately owned weapons that could be called forth when needed to defend the nation (a defensive model most closely approximated by the Swiss today). By decentralizing the nation's military power with the states and the citzenry, the founding fathers tried to ensure the federal government would not have the power to become tyrannical in the first place. That concept started to erode with the civil war where federalism won out over states rights. As the US gradually became a bigger power on the world scene in the late 19th and early 20th century a larger standing military was needed to protect our interests abroad. By the end of WWII we had become a super power and essentially the world's police force.

Its easy to see why statists and liberals feel the 2A is largely irrelevant today. Most folks now a days have no sense of civic duty or responsibility. Kennedys "what can you do for your country" speech is all but lost today. Its all about getting the free healthcare and bailouts today. Heck, you can barely get more than 15-20% of the population to vote regularly. Could you imagine trying to get folks to turnout once a month for their militia duty? Patriotism is practically illegal today.... We live in a society where most people expect someone else to lay their lives on the line to protect their freedom to go shopping at costco while lamenting the loss of jobs overseas, drive gas guzzlers while prostelyzing about the evils of global warming, and sit and eat chili dogs, chips and pizza while wishing something could be done about obesity. As a whole, we almost don't deserve the rights and fredoms afforded by the BOR and the 2A anymore. We've become a nation of sheep; all to willing to let the feds watch over us and control us - pleading on the phone to 911 for help when trouble is breaking down our door. The idea of citizen-minutemen responding at a moments notice is as anachronistic as the muskets they carried.

Our fight for the 2A is symbolic of the fight for our national culture. In addition to restoring our 2A rights, we need to restore the sense of indivdualism, self reliance, public service and civic duty to the nation as a whole.

renzoku
02-08-2011, 12:27 AM
I need a boat. A big one. Float to unincorporated international waters and make my own stupid government. *sigh*

Falconis
02-08-2011, 12:29 AM
None,

All the arms of the revolutionary war were privatly owned...

The cannons at lexinton/concord were privately owned..

The U.S. navy was privately owned..

if you could afford it, you could park a Man-o-war on your front lawn...



I thought we hired Pirates? Excuse me, privateers.

Joe
02-08-2011, 12:31 AM
They wouldn't ban anything

Veggie
02-08-2011, 12:44 AM
I don't believe the 2A was as much about resisting the government as much as we woukd like to.

You don't believe that 2A is based in the ability to revolt if required? After they just fought a war with their government who wanted to take all their guns and ammo?

Ripon83
02-08-2011, 4:36 AM
While the anti gun crowd discredits their constitutional relevance you should study some of the Federalist papers and founders comments on the second amendment. While I think what you wrote is "attractive" in so many ways I do think the founders intended for the citizens to be able to resist a tyrannical government - based on their own writings about the amendment.



I don't believe the 2A was as much about resisting the government as much as we woukd like to. The founding fathers didn't intend that the federal government maintain a large standing army. The concern is that a large military force paid by federal tax $$ would be more loyal to the government than the citizenry. Part of the 2A was to enable the citizenry to form state and local militias using privately owned weapons that could be called forth when needed to defend the nation (a defensive model most closely approximated by the Swiss today). By decentralizing the nation's military power with the states and the citzenry, the founding fathers tried to ensure the federal government would not have the power to become tyrannical in the first place. That concept started to erode with the civil war where federalism won out over states rights. As the US gradually became a bigger power on the world scene in the late 19th and early 20th century a larger standing military was needed to protect our interests abroad. By the end of WWII we had become a super power and essentially the world's police force.

Its easy to see why statists and liberals feel the 2A is largely irrelevant today. Most folks now a days have no sense of civic duty or responsibility. Kennedys "what can you do for your country" speech is all but lost today. Its all about getting the free healthcare and bailouts today. Heck, you can barely get more than 15-20% of the population to vote regularly. Could you imagine trying to get folks to turnout once a month for their militia duty? Patriotism is practically illegal today.... We live in a society where most people expect someone else to lay their lives on the line to protect their freedom to go shopping at costco while lamenting the loss of jobs overseas, drive gas guzzlers while prostelyzing about the evils of global warming, and sit and eat chili dogs, chips and pizza while wishing something could be done about obesity. As a whole, we almost don't deserve the rights and fredoms afforded by the BOR and the 2A anymore. We've become a nation of sheep; all to willing to let the feds watch over us and control us - pleading on the phone to 911 for help when trouble is breaking down our door. The idea of citizen-minutemen responding at a moments notice is as anachronistic as the muskets they carried.

Our fight for the 2A is symbolic of the fight for our national culture. In addition to restoring our 2A rights, we need to restore the sense of indivdualism, self reliance, public service and civic duty to the nation as a whole.

Scratch705
02-08-2011, 4:44 AM
probably atomic bombs, that would be about it.

the rest of it, if someone can afford it, why not let them buy it?

goodlookin1
02-08-2011, 8:22 AM
I cherish the thought of an armed and polite society. Unfortunately we have demoralized and degraded into a violent, selfish, entitlement society that says it's all about "me". There is rarely a sens of duty and pride....especially in politics.

I truly fear what would happen if anyone in our society was able to buy grenades, RPG's, Stinger missiles, etc. I'm okay with Full Auto's and any of the NFA type stuff. But devices that can destroy with such force, in the hands of God only knows who, is something to be feared in today's culture.

Back in the day, when people had respect for one another, when there was no such thing as "insanity" and only knew of "right" and "wrong", when people couldnt comprehend the idea of a madman shooting up a school and committing mass murder, when God was respected, when life was sacred and respected......etc, etc. Back in these days, I would totally go for people being able to own such destructive devices, because they would have been respected for what they were and how they should be used. But those days have been long gone and have been hijacked by an immoral and sick society. I like the idea for true patriots today, but not everyone else. There's too much depravity and not enough respect/love.

JMHO, and I'm sure many will disagree.

PatriotnMore
02-08-2011, 8:33 AM
While the anti gun crowd discredits their constitutional relevance you should study some of the Federalist papers and founders comments on the second amendment. While I think what you wrote is "attractive" in so many ways I do think the founders intended for the citizens to be able to resist a tyrannical government - based on their own writings about the amendment.

Yes. In addition, I do not know how anyone who has studied our past, its founding, and the writings of our founders, cannot understand or believe the 2A was not about the ability and right of the people to defend against a tyrannical government.

The right to abolish a tyrannical gov is in the preamble, and a nation which just came from an all out war against tyranny, made sure to write in its constitution, the ability and right of the people to be armed and prepared, against future tyranny.

qwer
02-08-2011, 8:48 AM
"What Guns would the Founders Ban?"
If a soldier can carry it, the 2A covers it.

PatriotnMore
02-08-2011, 8:55 AM
I cherish the thought of an armed and polite society. Unfortunately we have demoralized and degraded into a violent, selfish, entitlement society that says it's all about "me". There is rarely a sens of duty and pride....especially in politics.

I truly fear what would happen if anyone in our society was able to buy grenades, RPG's, Stinger missiles, etc. I'm okay with Full Auto's and any of the NFA type stuff. But devices that can destroy with such force, in the hands of God only knows who, is something to be feared in today's culture.

Back in the day, when people had respect for one another, when there was no such thing as "insanity" and only knew of "right" and "wrong", when people couldnt comprehend the idea of a madman shooting up a school and committing mass murder, when God was respected, when life was sacred and respected......etc, etc. Back in these days, I would totally go for people being able to own such destructive devices, because they would have been respected for what they were and how they should be used. But those days have been long gone and have been hijacked by an immoral and sick society. I like the idea for true patriots today, but not everyone else. There's too much depravity and not enough respect/love.

JMHO, and I'm sure many will disagree.


This is it in a nut shell. We are under attack, and in defense of a right clearly spelled out in the 2nd. We are dealing with fear, how to use technicality, and use doubt to create law from new meaning, aside the original intent.

rabagley
02-08-2011, 9:09 AM
If a soldier can carry it, the 2A covers it.

Soldiers couldn't carry the privately owned naval cannons used in the Revolutionary War. I argue that their modern equivalent (vehicle mounted/emplaced weapons) should also be legal for individuals to own and use.

There are backpack nukes, and small biological/chemical agent dispersal weapons that are man carried. I argue that these types of weapons, even if man carried, are political weapons, not military ones.

erik_26
02-08-2011, 9:50 AM
Private citizens that are armed, are the final check and balance to all three branches of government. They are the final line of defense to all threats, foreign and domestic.

Anyone that would propose disarming private citizens, doesn't have private citizens best interest in mind. They fear the repercussions of their actions or lack thereof.

If you can't fight back, you can and will be controlled.

Cobrafreak
02-08-2011, 10:21 AM
You have to think that even back in the 1700's there were citizens that would be considered irresponsible with firearms or be of a criminal bent. I know that the U.S. was the first nation to have paper money and counterfeiting was a huge crime back then. So there were bad citizens. There were also crazy citizens. Hats were prevalent back then. Every man wore a hat. The term "mad as a hatter" originated from how hats were made. They used mercury for an ingredient in hat making. It would cause madness and eventual early death. I would like to think that each community would basically police itself and keep guns out of known criminal hands and nut cases. But it would be a community of freedom loving people who know that without personal ownership of firearms they could lose everything they gained by leaving England. Today it is illegal for a crazy person to own a gun. Yet they still get them. To me it's the authorities inability to uphold established law that is the problem.

Wherryj
02-08-2011, 10:59 AM
The entire CA Gov needs a serious smackdown from the Founding Fathers themselves. The way this state has been "run" is cancerous compared to the rest of America. And NY and NJ would be considered tumorous.

If the founding fathers DO decide to come back to give CA a smack down, I'd have to ask that those "zombie killers" among you give them a free pass.

IPSICK
02-08-2011, 11:07 AM
What religions would the founders have banned? Forms of speech? I would have to say none.

Please see "Alien and Sedition Acts"...

The founders were not saints but people just like us..

scarville
02-08-2011, 11:19 AM
My understanding is that the Founding Fathers intended for the second amendment to enable citizens to stand up against a tyranical government.
Are you sure you want to say that?

If the Second Amendment protects the right to arms to enable armed insurection who are you going to be shooting? It might feel nice (though these days probably illegal) to imagine shooting the politicians but, historically, armed rebellions start out shooting the law enforcers first.

G60
02-08-2011, 11:33 AM
Please see "Alien and Sedition Acts"...

The founders were not saints but people just like us..

you can blame that jackball Hamilton for that. And Adams for signing it into law. The Founders were as different as we are all today.

But Hamilton is not a shining example of some of the other founders following the principles of enlightenment during the late 18th century.

(I don't like hamilton. Or the Federalists)

Ripon83
02-08-2011, 11:39 AM
It is not what I am wanting to say, but my understanding of their intentions. The Founding Fathers wrote numerous opinions about many of the amendments including the second; in that they suggested that the people have the right to defend themselves from government, and in that the weapons they have a right too are those weapons necessary for that defense. They did not say that it was the only reason, but it was one of the reasons - defense from the actions of another government (invasion) were also presented. That was foremost on their mind knowing the Brits could come back at just about any time. And just before 1812 they did.




Are you sure you want to say that?

If the Second Amendment protects the right to arms to enable armed insurection who are you going to be shooting? It might feel nice (though these days probably illegal) to imagine shooting the politicians but, historically, armed rebellions start out shooting the law enforcers first.

G60
02-08-2011, 12:03 PM
The second amendment was also put in place to guard against a standing army.

the people must be allowed to have their own arms. if the arms are provided by the government, the government can withhold them, and then we've got a standing army.

throughout history, standing armies have ended up turning on their own disarmed citizens, and we can't have that.

scarville
02-08-2011, 12:26 PM
It is not what I am wanting to say, but my understanding of their intentions. The Founding Fathers wrote numerous opinions about many of the amendments including the second; in that they suggested that the people have the right to defend themselves from government, and in that the weapons they have a right too are those weapons necessary for that defense. They did not say that it was the only reason, but it was one of the reasons - defense from the actions of another government (invasion) were also presented. That was foremost on their mind knowing the Brits could come back at just about any time. And just before 1812 they did.
I agree. The insurrectionist interpretation is logical given the environment in which the Second Amendment was created. In fact, the inclusion of the militia clause, I think, makes it the simplest interpretation. While Father William's razor is not always correct it does shift the burden of proof. However, my experience is that some people merely parrot the insurrectionist arguments but have not thought it through to the inevitable conclusion.

You seem to get it.