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.
The Founding Fathers never envisioned breech loading weapons let alone todays weaponry. I can't imagine Benjamin Franklin thinking it would be a good idea letting common people have guns with magazines or guns that can hit a target a mile away.
That said, they certainly wouldn't approve of police forces or a military like todays either. These have no place in the Founding and have done almost nothing except frustrate its intentions.
Next time you talk to the Founding Fathers, ask them if they envisioned the internet.
The truth is, you have no idea what the Founding Fathers envisioned. However, there had already been great strides in firearms design by the time of our Constitution. Do you really think that Benjamin Franklin, one of the greatest and most prolific inventors in American history, didn't foresee the evolution of firearms?
I do, however, agree with you on modern police forces being militarized and militaries being used as police forces. Those issues would have the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.
We must remember that at the time, the Founding Fathers supported citizens owning and bearing arms that were the equal of, and in some cases superior to, the firearms fielded by militaries of the day. A farmer's flintlock was the equal to a soldier's musket. More accurate, really. So they saw an armed citizenry as necessary to be mobilized as a fighting force to stop an invasion as well to stave off the tyranny of a government that might have lost its way.
The Founding Fathers never envisioned breech loading weapons let alone todays weaponry. I can't imagine Benjamin Franklin thinking it would be a good idea letting common people have guns with magazines or guns that can hit a target a mile away.
That said, they certainly wouldn't approve of police forces or a military like todays either. These have no place in the Founding and have done almost nothing except frustrate its intentions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
Next time you talk to the Founding Fathers, ask them if they envisioned the internet.
The truth is, you have no idea what the Founding Fathers envisioned. However, there had already been great strides in firearms design by the time of our Constitution. Do you really think that Benjamin Franklin, one of the greatest and most prolific inventors in American history, didn't foresee the evolution of firearms?
I do, however, agree with you on modern police forces being militarized and militaries being used as police forces. Those issues would have the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.
Btw, did you know that repeating firearms had already been invented by the time of the American Revolution? The Puckle gun was patented in 1717, and the Kalthoff Repeater was invented even prior to that, sometime in the 1600s (the actual date is unknown, but it was used in the Siege of Copenhagen circa 1658). Saying that the Founding Fathers couldn't envision repeating firearms is rather ridiculous when you look at history. The Bill of Rights was written with the future in mind, as a check on the powers of the federal government and a protection of basic human rights.
I agree it's the people behind the guns that are the problem. But why so much reluctance for the gun advocates to fight so hard not to make it more difficult to get one, whatever that policy would look like? No one is coming to your home to take your gun or others. Sorry, but with terrorism a real and honest threat (who knows, may have a neighbor in the basement right now), if you are on a terrorism watch list right or wrong, I wouldn't want that person with a gun. Even if at the end of the day a person was wrongfully put on that list (one which they can go through process to be taken off), I'll take that collateral damage any day of the week. Because who knows if that one person on a watch list isn't the next mass killer on US soil?
In my eyes, everything I've explained above is a compromise, not stripping EVERYONE (which so many gun advocates seem to believe) of their rights. It's attempting to protect MY right to live in this country safely.
A compromise is when each side gives a little and gets a little.
What are gun rights advocates getting in your "compromise" ?
I have been a gun owner for nearly 60 of my 64 years. I am not a gun hater, nor do I wish to take away all guns. Neither do I find 33,000 unnecessary deaths by gun violence an acceptable figure.
If gun control is not the answer, then we need people control. I would love to hear from the 2A absolutists what they think can be done about it, and no, "nothing" is not the answer.
"People control" is absolutely necessary, but this would necessitate:
Being honest about which people need to be controlled. Meaning that political correctness would have to go out the window......unacceptable to gun control activists.
Keeping violent felons locked up for life, while returning 2nd amendment rights to all non violent parolees that are deemed safe to return into society......unacceptable to gun control activists.
Be done within the confines of the Constitution and the 2nd amendment.....which rules out things like arbitrary lists compiled by the government that strip rights away without due process.
Again, unacceptable to gun control activists.
These are the things that "2nd amendment absolutists" would find acceptable as their end of any "compromise".
the rights are not for government to give, they are not public right, they are telling the government what they cant do. the government cant make no laws................against ........the right for the public to bear arms. its protecting the public from the enemy of the government. so how can your enemy tell you what you cant do.
the rights are not for government to give, they are not public right, they are telling the government what they cant do. the government cant make no laws................against ........the right for the public to bear arms. its protecting the public from the enemy of the government. so how can your enemy tell you what you cant do.
The government has made plenty of laws against the public's right to bear certain arms. We can't have bazookas (sp) or hand granades or bombs, etc. So clearly we can't bear all arms. Imo we should only be able to bear the kinds of arms that existed when the 2nd amendment was passed. Ban the rest that is killing tens of thousands of our kids.
Being honest about which people need to be controlled.
And which people IYO would that be?
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.
