Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Honestly, our founders knew nothing about the future when they wrote the constitution. How would they know that there would be cars, planes, phones, internet....etc. Life was much more simple then. I think they are rolling over in their graves in how we have abused their meaning.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
Sorry, whats your point. Although, I love the part about all men being created equal. That excluded women until they finally had the right to vote....a first step. And when was that lol certainly not in the constitution
Sorry, whats your point. Although, I love the part about all men being created equal. That excluded women until they finally had the right to vote....a first step. And when was that lol certainly not in the constitution
You should be thanking the republicans for passing women's suffrage
The point is the feelings of the founders is easy to know, you just have to read the words from said founders.
You should be thanking the republicans for passing women's suffrage
The point is the feelings of the founders is easy to know, you just have to read the words from said founders.
I think the point is....we all read the words but derive different meanings. There was really no authority when the constitution was written so of course you had to defend yourself. And political parties have changed or are you still hanging on to the old regime lol
Honestly, our founders knew nothing about the future when they wrote the constitution.
Yes they did which is why they made a way to amend it.
Quote:
How would they know that there would be cars, planes, phones, internet....etc. Life was much more simple then. I think they are rolling over in their graves in how we have abused their meaning.
They were pretty smart. They knew technology wouldn't stand still.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
It is difficult for some to grasp what the founding fathers meant when they drew up this amendment.
My interpretation has always been based on the time the amendment was drawn up and adopted.
One has to understand that the war had just ended, and in the minds of the fathers, common people took up arms,and formed a militia to fight the British.
In that context, the people who took up arms to fight the British, were the "well regulated militia", and the fathers , by adopting the second amendment assured that the people who made up this 'well regulated militia" would have the right to bear arms.
I think the confusion is in "just who are the people"?
I do not believe the "people" meant each and every citizen of the country.
The amendment was aimed at the "people who formed a well regulated militia".
And there in lies the problem.
People for years have felt the fathers meant ALL people, when in fact it is only those who had formed a well regulated militia to ward of the British that the amendment was intended for.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
It is difficult for some to grasp what the founding fathers meant when they drew up this amendment.
My interpretation has always been based on the time the amendment was drawn up and adopted.
One has to understand that the war had just ended, and in the minds of the fathers, common people took up arms,and formed a militia to fight the British.
In that context, the people who took up arms to fight the British, were the "well regulated militia", and the fathers , by adopting the second amendment assured that the people who made up this 'well regulated militia" would have the right to bear arms.
I think the confusion is in "just who are the people"?
I do not believe the "people" meant each and every citizen of the country.
The amendment was aimed at the "people who formed a well regulated militia".
And there in lies the problem.
People for years have felt the fathers meant ALL people, when in fact it is only those who had formed a well regulated militia to ward of the British that the amendment was intended for.
Bob.
To add, not only did the mighty British empire have a significant claim in North America but the French and Spanish, as America was still very weak militarily. Then you have the fact the native aemrican attacks were a real threat plus there was no organized law enforcement that would support must of the popupatin
I wonder what the founding fathers would say if they today.
Honestly, our founders knew nothing about the future when they wrote the constitution. How would they know that there would be cars, planes, phones, internet....etc. Life was much more simple then. I think they are rolling over in their graves in how we have abused their meaning.
The beauty of the Constitution is that it is timeless and there was no need to know the Future.
Whether cars, planes, phones or the internet exist or not has no bearing on the Constitution and yet the Constitution does address cars, planes, phones and the internet.
The Framers of the Constitution were well-versed in Stoicism.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
It is difficult for some to grasp what the founding fathers meant when they drew up this amendment.
My interpretation has always been based on the time the amendment was drawn up and adopted.
One has to understand that the war had just ended, and in the minds of the fathers, common people took up arms,and formed a militia to fight the British.
In that context, the people who took up arms to fight the British, were the "well regulated militia", and the fathers , by adopting the second amendment assured that the people who made up this 'well regulated militia" would have the right to bear arms.
I think the confusion is in "just who are the people"?
I do not believe the "people" meant each and every citizen of the country.
The amendment was aimed at the "people who formed a well regulated militia".
And there in lies the problem.
People for years have felt the fathers meant ALL people, when in fact it is only those who had formed a well regulated militia to ward of the British that the amendment was intended for.
Bob.
Hmmm, what defines a well regulated militia, by the true meaning of it any grouped can form and call themselves a militia and by having rules and guidelines they can also claim they are well regulated, so for some of us the term applies because we may belong to a group of people that are well armed and trained and have set rules.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
