# Quotes from America’s founders shed light on Second Amendment



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

For those interested, but not overly studious.



> George Mason: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. ... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
> 
> Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms. ... To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike ... how to use them."
> 
> ...


Quotes from America?s founders shed light on Second Amendment


----------



## Targetshooter (Dec 4, 2015)

great post ,, I had to save this on .


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

It is also important to realize that they were also including modern arms that would be used by a militia or standing army as well as those for self protection or sport. If it were to be followed as intended I could have a 
LAW at home or a SAW. Even a stinger.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

I don't want to sound anti-2nd Amendment here. But could the founders have possibly envisioned the enormous power of todays weapons and what destruction a single person could wield with, say, a fighter bomber.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

sideKahr said:


> I don't want to sound anti-2nd Amendment here. But could the founders have possibly envisioned the enormous power of todays weapons and what destruction a single person could wield with, say, a fighter bomber.


You anti-2nd sounding....just kidding. No of course not, but they also could not envision cell phones and the internet.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

you don't even have to read the country's founding father's quotes or read their papers/journals to understand the original Amendments - just know the history of the country post Revolutionary War .... Tom Jefferson didn't affirm, with the original basic Constitution, the basic rights of citizens that were trampled by King George and started the revolt & war ... The Amendments were added to cover those rights - and by order of significance and priority - #2 being the right to bear arms to allow citizens to keep another King George from trampling again .... the first engagement of the Revolutionary War was at Lexington and Concord - the very physical representation of the 2nd Amendment in action ....

doesn't take a genius to see it in black & white - but oooooh soooooo eazy to mis-represent those very same basic rights Amendments when a King George is involved


----------



## baldman (Apr 5, 2016)

I will post those quotes on another site as well thank you.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

sideKahr said:


> I don't want to sound anti-2nd Amendment here. But could the founders have possibly envisioned the enormous power of todays weapons and what destruction a single person could wield with, say, a fighter bomber.


???? .... they were the most educated people of the time - studied the advancement of weaponry thru the ages and the older gentleman actually experienced the improvement of firearms .... they weren't intelligent enough to realize that better and better weapons would be developed? .... Tom Jefferson wrote the damn Constitution and was a remarkable inventor in his own right without bringing up Ben Franklin ...

the Constitution was wrote as a living breathing document with built in procedures to expand it where & when necessary - but the original Amendments stand affirm by themselves as basic rights to it's citizens ....

the Supreme Court just agreed with the Founders - a weapon is a weapon is a weapon - doesn't matter if it shoots a bullet or disables your attacker with a gas or energy pulse ....


----------



## Rob Roy (Nov 6, 2013)

You can keep bombers out of citizens hands with laws like "military class pilot's license". Tanks could be limited in similar fashion. These are vehicles, not weapons. As for nuclear or biological (even many chemical weapons), you prohibit the material. It in itself is not a weapon.

The way the amendment is intended is for the people to have the means to defend themselves, even from their own government. That being said, as dangerous as it could be, the citizens need the opportunity to have similar weaponry to that of the military. Now budget alone will make that improbable. If a citizen wrangled up an AA missile defense system, it would only take one low flying drone to flush a big stack of cash down the toilet.

I realize I'm with the fringe on this view. Not the first time though...

You guys gotta' watch this video. It's short but covers the OP's subject:


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Illini Warrior said:


> ???? .... they were the most educated people of the time - studied the advancement of weaponry thru the ages and the older gentleman actually experienced the improvement of firearms .... they weren't intelligent enough to realize that better and better weapons would be developed? .... Tom Jefferson wrote the damn Constitution and was a remarkable inventor in his own right without bringing up Ben Franklin ...
> 
> the Constitution was wrote as a living breathing document with built in procedures to expand it where & when necessary - but the original Amendments stand affirm by themselves as basic rights to it's citizens ....
> 
> the Supreme Court just agreed with the Founders - a weapon is a weapon is a weapon - does matter if it shoots a bullet or disables your attacker with a gas or energy pulse ....


It would be nice if ALL the amendments were interperted absolutely. But I don't want the local whacko crack dealer to be able to stock an arsenal of 155 mm howitzers and hellfire missiles.


----------



## Grim Reality (Mar 19, 2014)

It would seem that "owning" truly enormous ordnance is very impractical. The big ones require the use of
a crew to serve properly...though I do know of some individuals that have large rifles at their disposal to
fire at mountains to reduce avalanche danger. But they are not easily transportable and the ammo is...
COSTLY!

To think of some GANG getting there hands on major weapons...? Very bad news! But people who are 
most likely to manage to get them would be very rich or be high-ranking militarily. The very rich are well
enough off that they don't need to use them against a populace...excepting for home defense. The officer
in the military...he has firepower at his disposal almost all the time. 

I would be very happy with a few pieces of heavy firepower...but they are not likely to come my way...and
I would be stymied at my inability to buy the ammo to feed them.

To fuel, support and properly maintain a jet fighter...you must indeed be a millionaire...or better. I am not
in that category. And I don't think Uncle Sam sells them readily to anyone other than Sovereign States...
unless the planes are quite old and have all their guns and bomb racks removed. I recall seeing a few
F-80 Shooting Stars in civilian hands...also an old Sabre Jet...I don't know of anyone owning an F-16 or
similar new plane.

As I have stated before, I think the founding fathers intended that the people have whatever small arms are
in use by the current military...otherwise we civilians would only be allowed to carry Flintlocks! With the
intent of an armed citizenry able to form fighting militias...for them to be armed with antiquated and obsolete
guns totally defeats the purpose. 

With that in mind, I'm lining up to buy a couple of .50 cal. M2's! When they become available! I am not going
to hold my breath.

As to the founding fathers being able to foresee the weaponry of today? Who among us can see the future? I
am constantly intrigued by new technology...weapons not being the least. I would imagine in a 100 years or so
that soldiers will have beam weapons...we already have the primitive beginnings of such...and look at what has
happened to aviation and flight within the last 100 years. High intensity lasers are in research as we speak...
albeit they are (presently) large and unwieldy...therefore are suitable only for large platforms like a ship or a 
land base. There have been experiments with mounting them in large aircraft as well (Boeing 747). They are 
however not well able to deal with inclement weather (fog/rain) ...at least presently.

Grim


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

Grim Reality said:


> It would seem that "owning" truly enormous ordnance is very impractical. The big ones require the use of
> a crew to serve properly...though I do know of some individuals that have large rifles at their disposal to
> fire at mountains to reduce avalanche danger. But they are not easily transportable and the ammo is...
> COSTLY!
> ...


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

sideKahr said:


> It would be nice if ALL the amendments were interperted absolutely. But I don't want the local whacko crack dealer to be able to stock an arsenal of 155 mm howitzers and hellfire missiles.


the founding fathers didn't bother to address the criminal element - and the "crack dealer with an arsenal of 155mm howitzers and hellfire missiles" did exist in those times - they didn't bother because common sense was just assumed to be always used in determining what was legal or illegal .... if they ever thought that the roving sea pirate would have constitutional rights to own the ship's cannon, he used for plundering, the 2A would reflect it ....


----------



## Michael_Js (Dec 4, 2013)

Some good quotes and info here: https://survivalblog.com/the-sole-purpose-of-the-2nd-amendment-by-plain-jane-prepper/


----------

