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.
“Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army... and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government ... the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger [of attack].
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation,... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms...”
- - - James Madison, Federalist Paper #46.
In Federalist Paper #46, 1788, James Madison argued that Americans should not fear the “federal” government to be established under the new compact constitution. He argued that since the American people are armed, unlike other nations whose governments fear an armed populace, no federal army could defeat the States and their stalwart militiamen, who would outnumber and outgun any standing army.
OOOPS.
James Madison certainly was arguing that an Armed American People was the means to thwart ambition in the Federal government.
And governments have become more violent than ever before, making this right all the more important. How many millions were killed in the last century by their own governments?
So your solution is abrogation of the "well-regulated" aspect - allowing each person to decide for themselves what to shoot and when and how severely to "protect" themselves - whatever assuages their fear, or feeds their arrogance, or pads their own personal avarice.
Sorry, but no sale. Why should anyone who doesn't know a gun owner trust that gun owner with the firepower to kill dozens of people in a short period of time? The government that a gun owner points to as their point of fear, as you have, is actually that which has the power to legitimize a gun owner having the weapons that would not be banned under the regulations. A gun owner projecting the idea that they need their more and more powerful guns to allow them to commit aggression against the only thing that serves as a rational basis for trusting them with any guns in the first place labels that gun owner as a danger to society.
James Madison certainly was arguing that an Armed American People was the means to thwart ambition in the Federal government.
So here's an idea: Let's have each state create a state militia, and staff it with volunteers and officers who report to the governor, not the President, to serve as that bulwark?
So here's an idea: Let's have each state create a state militia, and staff it with volunteers and officers who report to the governor, not the President, to serve as that bulwark?
What?
We already have that?
Here's a better idea: let's follow the Constitution just the way it's written. Shall not be infringed.
Your guns are don't stand a chance against the government, sorry.
That's not a valid argument.
In fact, that just reinforces my point. The government is getting too big and too dangerous. Thanks.
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.
