|

Founding Fathers explained Second Amendment’s origin

The Constitution of the United States is not a “dynamic” document, subject to the whims of a 21st century government, unless it is amended in accordance with the process described in Article V of the Constitution, which the Supreme Court has twice reaffirmed with respect to the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Presidents can’t simply sign an executive order, and voila’, the Constitution is magically amended. To amend the Constitution takes overwhelming majority support, because the Founding Fathers knew that governments would be tempted to bypass the amendment process, when the Constitution hindered them from assuming more power from the people.

Obama stated in his inaugural address, “But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.” Then amend the Constitution, Mr. President.

It takes a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress or a Constitutional Convention of two-thirds of the states and ratification by 3/4th of the states (38 of 50). The Founding Fathers didn’t want 21st century governments or any future government to easily change their thoughtful and reasoned work.

George Washington stated,

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates.”

“But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” (farewell address) “A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined…”

No one is arguing that there can’t be a civil debate on the Constitution’s Second Amendment, however, many of the Founding Fathers wrote the amendment to ensure the new republic wasn’t able to do what the British Parliament had done in England.

The Founding Fathers were called traitors and seditionists by England. In the 21st Century, Americans call them patriots. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Syria and Egypt are proof of what the Founding Fathers feared about governments, where the only weapons the Syrians and Egyptians have to defend themselves are rocks, sticks and stones!

Thomas Jefferson -

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

George Mason -

“Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised … to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…”

James Madison - (Federalist Papers #46),

 “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.. (where) ..the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

“…To these (federal troops attempting to impose tyranny) would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.”

Patrick Henry - During Virginia Ratification Convention 1788,

“The great object is, that every man be armed … Everyone who is able may have a gun. Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

Noah Webster (Served in Revolutionary Army, Printed dictionary; a federalist),

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed….”

Alexander Hamilton,

“Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped.” (Federalist Papers #29)

Zacharia Johnson (delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention),

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”

My point is these patriots knew about tyranny in Europe. The American government may never assume that role, but it isn’t sedition to want to defend oneself against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

The signers of the founding documents lived and died based on principals of liberty and fought against the tyranny of Britain. Many today do not trust government bureaucrats and they have a right to defend themselves against tyranny, regardless the tyrant.

Background checks may prevent some guns from getting into the wrong hands, but registration of gun purchases and existing gun registration might provide the means of government to bypass the Constitution in the case of martial law, for instance.

But the bottom line dictates that gun-control laws will not affect the criminals, only those who obey the laws of the land, including the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Americans should heed the wisdom, experience and the legacy passed down to the 21st Century by our Founding Fathers, who gave us the right to keep and bear arms and no one, including the government, should infringe on those rights under the guise of “gun violence”.

Share:

12 Comments

  1. Hello Ted it’s 2013! You can climb out of your time machine now.

  2. I noticed you failed to mention the words “well-regulated” also found in the Second Amendment. That’s clearly intentional because the intent of that specific wording forms the nexus of this legal debate.

    In DC v. Heller (2008), SCOTUS determined that the words “well-regulated” implies “nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training[…]”. That’s an important limitation, but it does not imply that there should be no “proper discipline” and no “training” at all vis a vis firearms. This is why we aren’t allowed to bear machine guns. Even conservative jurisprudence is not arguing that we cannot regulate firearms at all, so I’m not sure on what basis you are.

    A subsequent landmark ruling, McDonald v. Chicago (2010), cleared up some of the murkiness left in the wake of Heller pertaining to the rights of states to apply different firearm regulation standards. In a 5-4 ruling, SCOTUS ruled that due process protections extended via the Fourteenth Amendment applied to Second Amendment rights. Do you think the Founders made any explicit intention whatsoever to extend myriad potential constitutional protections to the Second Amendment granted by an amendment ratified nearly 100 years later? Without the “amendment process”? If that’s not legal dynamism in action, I don’t know what is.

    President Obama is not attempting to “amend the constitution” by executive order. Directing the federal government to hire an ATF Director is not amending the constitution.

    Also – that Jefferson quote is hogwash. The Monticello Community has repeatedly disavowed the quotation you have cited, stating categorically it “has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson.”

    http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/strongest-reason-people-to-retain-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-quotation

  3. NAVYFLYER09

    Ted, once again you have hit the bullseye. Stevie — like most progressives, libs, dems or whatever rock they hide under — think that the Constitution is an inconvenient piece of paper that can be changed by anyone of their “emperors.”

    A good friend of mine I graduated with from college just lost his daughter, her combat veteran active-duty husband and their unborn child as they were murdered this last month while walking into their home and surprising two armed burglars.

    Now I don’t know if my friend’s daughter and son-in-law had access to a weapon to defend themselves or not. What I do know is that the two teenage a***oles who murdered them had guns. And I will bet my last dollar that those guns were not registered to the two teenage thugs..

    We don’t need more laws to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens to arm and protect themselves according to the second amendment. What we need is to prosecute these scumbags — and all like them — and never let them see the light of day or better yet a speedy trial to the death penalty.

    I also know that the criminals will not reduce the number of rounds in their clips or the firepower of their weapons, so why should the law-abiding citizens!!

    Second suspect arrested after Colorado Springs couple slain

    http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/second-suspect-arrested-after-colorado-springs-couple-slain

    Ted, you keep fighting the fight and hittings the bulleyes as we try to educate the “self-proclaimed all knowing but wrong” libs such as the uneducated Cunningham.

  4. Navyflyer,

    Before you start namecalling and calling the majority ofthe population stupid and uneducated, you should probably look up correlations between political association and intelligence.

    I am sorry to hear about your friends violent and tragic passing, but as powerful as it is to you why do you not see the same power and emotion from the story of sandy hook or any other of the mass shootings that occured this year?

    Also yes, the constitution can be changed. The men who wrote the constitution were really a band of pirates if you really look at them. Hamilton died in a duel against another presidential candidate. These are the men you wish to take as gospel in terms of gun regulation?

  5. I don’t hide from anyone or anything least of all you flyboy. Spare us your military reminicings and wake up to what the majority of American families (2013) want. Gun control!

  6. RedRover

    Discussions of this topic have become so boring because they have been reduced to succession of predictable half-truths presented to support invariably half-baked ideas.

    For a break from this endless tedium, have a look at this interesting article that covers little-known aspects of the history of gun control:

    The Secret History of Guns
    The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it. And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement. In the battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there’s no resolution in sight.
    By Adam Winkler, September 2011 ATLANTIC MAGAZINE
    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

    “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum….”
    — Noam Chomsky, The Common Good

  7. CJR1,

    You should look at the education of political parties – TEA Party members are better educated than most:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?_r=0

    “The men who wrote the constitution were really a band of pirates if you really look at them. Hamilton died in a duel against another presidential candidate.” – Please describe how all of the men that wrote the constitution are pirates based upon Alexander Hamilton having a duel.

    That would be like painting all liberals as uneducated and using you as an example.

    Steverino,

    The majority of Americans didn’t want $16 Trillion in debt and Trillion dollar deficits, but yet we have them. I thank guys like NavyFlyer for his service to his country even if it means that I have to see you exercise your freedom of speech.

    RedRover,

    Findout why Congressman Bobby Rush (D) has changed his position on gun control since he used to be a leader of the domestic terrorist group known as the Black Panthers.

  8. I’m still trying to find out if Jesse Jackson Jr. surrendered all HIS firearms, since his hospitalization for bi-polar treatment disqualifies him from holding a FOID card.
    Hey, the law is the law, even if your daddy is a famous race-hustler.

  9. NAVYFLYER09

    CJR1, really?

    If you actually read, and more improtantly, understood what I wrote, you would have seen and understood the “self-proclaimed” comment. The maybe read the article posted by Terry.

    As far as changing the Constitution, did you really read what Ted had to say and what the requirements and laws are in order to facilitate the change? I think not, or again, if you did read it, did you really not understand it?

    And you really want to take on the Founding Fathers. In those days — right or wrong — many disagreements were settled in a duel. Do you understand what a duel is? Do you realize that both parties in a duel are armed with a “like” weapon? As opposed to the criminals against the law-abiding citizens. If two thugs break into my home with guns and multiple rounds anywhere from 6 – inifinity, do you really think they weill let me call a “time-out” while I re-load because Emperor Obama declared I could only have 10 rounds or less?

  10. NAVYFLYER09

    Steve Poo, “military reminicings”?

    Can you read? Did I talk about my military service at all? I think not.

    Your mere comment implies that you either dislike those who have served or are envious because you took the coward’s way out.

    I really don’t care what you hide from or not. Again you either can’t read or are not smart enough to understand how the democrats changed from being “liberals” when that word become a negative to now calling themselves “progressives.”

    To put it in simple terms for you, if you buy a “previously-owned” vehicle, guess what? You are really buying a “used car!!”

  11. A little reality for the Left-leaning participants:

    As gun rights and gun control are debated in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting, a majority of Americans say elected officials are exploiting the tragedy. The new Reason-Rupe poll finds 52 percent of Americans believe that elected officials are exploiting the tragedy for political gain, while 41 percent feel elected officials are acting responsibly.

    Democrats differ sharply from independents and Republicans on the issue. Seventy-one percent of Republicans and 60 percent of independents think the tragedy is being politicized, while just 32 percent of Democrats believe so.

    As Jacob Sullum mentioned in his column this morning, Reason-Rupe finds that over half, 51 percent, of Americans say people should be allowed to own assault weapons, while 44 percent say people should be prohibited from owning assault weapons. Once again there is a substantial political divide: 68 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of independents say assault weapons should be allowed. However, just 33 percent of Democrats agree.

    The poll also found little consensus when respondents were asked, open-ended, to actually define an assault weapon. Assault weapons were described as fully automatic machine guns in 29 percent of the responses. Twenty-seven percent of the answers defined assault weapons as any gun that fires rapidly, 23 percent focused on the size of the magazine or clip and 17 percent described them as any gun having the ability to fire multiple rounds.

    Read more at: http://reason.com/poll/2013/01/30/52-percent-of-americans-sa-sandy-hook-is

    I can only wonder how many more of the respondents would have agreed that owning so-called “assault weapons” (Personal Defense Weapons) was acceptable, had that 29% known that they were NOT fully- automatic machine guns?

  12. This video, from the father of a Sandy Hook student, will not be seen on the Lamestream media for reasons that will quickly become apparent.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wAYLr6u2FyY

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>