The Founding Fathers Made a Mistake With the Second Amendment (abortions, school)

[Roboteer]

The Founding Fathers Made a Mistake With the Second Amendment


In 1791, the Framers decided more people would suffer and die if govt had ANY authority to restrict or take away guns, than if the govt were forbidden to restrict or ban any of them. They put a command into the Constitution saying "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And they even put an explanatory clause before it.

The main reason was to prevent a tyrannical government from abusing its citizens. But George Washington also had the usual domestic criminals to deal with, and some insane people just as we have today, who might randomly kill innocent people. By a gun, or a gunpowder bomb that could blow up an entire building etc. Yet the people of his time knew that it was more dangerous to give govt any power to decide who could own a gun and who couldn't, than to put up with a few nutcases who might hurt or even kill somebody.

And the Framers also knew that the people themselves were a far more effective deterrent to crime, than a hired police force who the criminals could identify by sight and dodge as it suited them when committing crimes.

When the people in 1791 wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment, they made no mistake. They provided the most effective means to safeguard the people that has ever been developed, in our world of imperfect people. It is not perfect, since no program can be perfect throughout an entire population. But it can keep more people alive and safe, than any other "solution" offered by blinders-on leftists, then and now.

And the big-govt leftists have been fighting against it tooth and nail, ever since.

[Winterfall8324]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

"No. It was meant so that colonizers on the frontier could defend themselves from native tribes and push American farm land west without the need of an organized military to be at constant war spread thin along the wide border.'


Provide historical FACTS to back this up.

There is plenty of documented evidence. But you don't need any of that.

If you think critically the answer will become obvious. First give up the assumption that the founding fathers were divine philosophers and accept they were politicians looking after the interests of their new state and the well being of its people.

What where the two largest factors to the pursuit of happiness and population stability? Westward expansion and allowing citizens on the western half of the new country opportunity to settle and trade.

When you have extensive unexplored land (even before the Louisiana purchase) not governed by the state you need to allow a reasonable means for protection. The state did not have the resources or logistics to mandate a full occupation of the dense forest land west, so it is much easier to have each family colonize the land themselves.

What was the other source of US economic interests at the time? Small plantations, mainly south of Maryland. Southern states were also responsible for writing the constitution. Now none of those states could easily guarantee the commodity that is the slave protected, so again it would be easier for these citizens to arm themselves. That way you have wide scale protection without the need for an extensive bureaucracy or tax system.

It was an obvious choice and there was nothing immoral about it, it was just reality. The founders had to balance different interests and maintain the well being of the state. It was an obvious choice.

They were not philosophers thinking ahead 300 years hoping to defend people from the growth of government. They were people more concerned (and occupied) with the problems of their time, they wouldn't care about modern problems that have nothing to do with their time.

[njbiodude]

Originally Posted by mike0618

Other countries have issues with strict gun control. England still has shootings, stabbings and beheadings and most of their cops can’t even carry guns. Gun control is only good for those who obey the laws. Criminals by definition dont follow laws.

Im not going to bother to look it up but our per capita homicide rate by guns is much, much higher than other developed nations. Why is it when Australia banned assault style weapons there were less mass shootings after?

[Roboteer]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

Why is it when Australia banned assault style weapons there were less mass shootings after?

Why is it that when the U.S. did the same thing, mass shootings here were not reduced at all?

[rstevens62]

Originally Posted by Roboteer

Why is it that when the U.S. did the same thing, mass shootings here were not reduced at all?

The Australian Govt likely did not have such high 'tyrannical aspirations' as the US govt does...that is the main difference.

[Pilot1]

So if LAW ABIDING CITIZENS just giver up our Natural Rights, crime will go away. Right? Maybe Freedom of Speech should be next?

[Rocko20]

The 2nd amendment is so we don’t turn into socialist Vietnam, Venezuela, and Cuba overnight in the case of any socialist becoming POTUS.

We need guns now more than ever.

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by Roboteer

When the people in 1791 wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment, they made no mistake. They provided the most effective means to safeguard the people that has ever been developed, in our world of imperfect people. It is not perfect, since no program can be perfect throughout an entire population. But it can keep more people alive and safe, than any other "solution" offered by blinders-on leftists, then and now.

And the big-govt leftists have been fighting against it tooth and nail, ever since.

They just thought a militia was a good idea at the time given that they had recently fought in a war for their independence.

Militias were common at the time, and they later became reserve forces.

In times of war or threat countries often form militias, suting WW2 Britain set up a Home Guard and people showed up for parade at their local drill hall with their guns.

[njbiodude]

Originally Posted by Roboteer

Why is it that when the U.S. did the same thing, mass shootings here were not reduced at all?

They didn’t. That guy literally walked into a Walmart with a semiautomatic weapon. Noone even called the cops becaude its Texas, and thats legal there.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by HeyJude514

There, I said it.

Well, ignorant comments abound.

The problem isn't the 2nd Amendment, it's your system.

If you watched Dateline NBC Friday last, here's a man who physically and emotionally abused his wife, and when she finally did the right thing and left him, he holds his toddler son hostage during a SWAT stand-off threatening to kill his son and himself and when he surrenders, he exits the house holding his toddler child in front of his as a shield.

Your system lets him plead guilty to a freaking misdemeanor charge.

Then comes the travesty of the divorce proceedings.

The judge in his infinite wisdom does all of the following:

1) orders the wife who was emotionally and psychically abused and lived through the horror of the SWAT stand-off in which her son might have died to pay alimony to the spousal abuser.

2) grants custody to the man who held his toddler son hostage during a SWAT stand-off threatening to kill his son

3) orders supervised visitation for the man who held his toddler son hostage during a SWAT stand-off threatening to kill his son

4) orders the wife to pay the cost of the supervised visits

5) completely ignores the reports of the psychiatrist who interviewed the man man who held his toddler son hostage during a SWAT stand-off threatening to kill his son which said the man had serious psychiatric problems and was a threat to his ex-wife, son and the community.

6) orders the man who held his toddler son hostage during a SWAT stand-off threatening to kill his son to get psychological treatment but refuses to attach any conditions, such as repercussions for failing to get psychological counseling

All the while, the man continually makes threats of violence against his ex-wife.


No one in the system follows up to ensure the man is engaging in psychological counseling, not that it mattered since there were no consequences for not getting counseling.


All the while, the ex-wife has to pay a private investigator to provide personal protective services to her and her son.

When the restraining order expires, the judge refuses to extend it.

Now the man who held his toddler son hostage during a SWAT stand-off threatening to kill his son is legally able to get a gun.

He does.

Then he goes on a rampage killing the psychiatrist who wrote the report for the court and two paralegals in a law firm that represented his ex-wife in a court and two other people and was attempting to find and kill his wife.

The ex-wife drained her bank accounts paying for the protective services for her and her son, but fortunately the private investigator was like me, duty bound with a sense of honor and he continued to protect her, because he knew this man was going to come after her and her son.

Now the tax-payers are on the hook for autopsies that should never have needed to be performed, plus the cost of the criminal investigation and the cost of the massive man-hunt for this killer in a town gripped with fear.

When the SWAT team finally surrounds the hotel in which he is staying, he commits suicide.

All that because your system totally massively spectacularly failed.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat thousands and thousands of times in similar or related situations.

The 2nd Amendment didn't fail, but your system did and unless and until you make changes to the system, then enjoy lathering, rinsing and repeating.