Founding Fathers and the 2nd Ammendment

[97gs500e]

What the founding fathers thought about "gun control"
________________________________________
I found this on another site and thought I'd share.  This is for you Geep 

Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly's reply to the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

Thomas Jefferson: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764.

Thomas Jefferson: "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

Thomas Jefferson: "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

Noah Webster: "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops" (Noah Webster, 1787)

George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.)

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)

William Pitt: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (Nov. 18, 1783)

Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Patrick Henry: "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 ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

St. George Tucker: "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

Thomas Paine: "...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."

Not a founding father, but a major political and spiritual leader:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." GANDHI("Gandhi, an Autobiography," M.K. Gandhi, 446)

[GeeP]

What makes you think I'm pro "gun control"? 

I simply get tired of hearing about it, just like abortion and "terrorists".  It's a "designer issue" to keep the public busy.

There are more important problems right now.  The stability of the US banking system and the economy being a couple of them.  There won't be much left to defend if it isn't sorted out.

Be an original thinker for once and post your own thoughts, instead of taking other people's thoughts from some message board.  Among those who think, we'll think more of it. 



BTW:  I agree with most of the quotes posted.

However, "arms" alone are not enough.  Franklin and Adams especially realized this.

[joshr08]

+1000000000000000 There are more important problems right now.  gun control is a very boring topic. and if you havent noticed it doesnt matter what anyone else wants its up to the suit and ties in the big house.  not you and me.

[jserio]

i don't think the govt will try to take our guns. at least not in our lifetime. they may say they'll try, but i think that's just lips-smacking for their political backers. they can't be that dumb. they know, deep down, in order to completely rid society of guns, they would have to go door-to-door, by force, and remove them. civil war anyone? seriously, not gonna happen. BUT, pay attention however, educate your children, for someday, they may try.....just not anytime soon, they've got bigger fish to fry.

[97gs500e]

What makes you think I'm pro "gun control"? 

You dismiss the topic as if it doesn't matter.  That's why I posted it. 

I simply get tired of hearing about it, just like abortion and "terrorists".  It's a "designer issue" to keep the public busy.

I disagree.  This is a real issue and we ARE heading toward towards public disarmament.  Another "assault weapons" ban is a form of public disarmament.  No Gun zones are No Defense zones.  Wisconsin and Illinois outlawed Concealed Carry, THAT is public disarmament.  If outlawing gun ownership, of any kind, helps to reduce violent or non-violent crime, you let me know.  I would be interested in hearing about that. 

There are more important problems right now.  The stability of the US banking system and the economy being a couple of them.  There won't be much left to defend if it isn't sorted out.

I agree that the economy is more of an emergent issue, I'm worried about my job security just as many others are Im sure, however, with Obama, Emmanuel, and Holder and the influence of the Brady Campaign - increased legislation is practically inevitable.

Be an original thinker for once and post your own thoughts, instead of taking other people's thoughts from some message board.  Among those who think, we'll think more of it. 

I have researched FBI studies regarding "gun control".  I don't belong to the left or right.  Our two party system is failing our country and it's sad.  How would you have me post quotes from deceased leaders of our country?  Surely if I had not mentioned that my source was another board, you would not have known.  If you would like me to provide you with some letters I've write regularly to my congressmen I can certainly do so.  I think people ought to be aware of certain things, and there are too many that stand by and do nothing for what they believe in. 

BTW:  I agree with most of the quotes posted.

Which one's do not agree with?  Let's talk about it.

[GeeP]

What makes you think I'm pro "gun control"? 

You dismiss the topic as if it doesn't matter.  That's why I posted it.

I dismiss the topic because it is used by the media, the citizens, and those in power use it as a tool to ruffle feathers and get what they want.  It should be allowed to stand on it's own merits.  That means divorcing it from all other issues.  Self-protection and protection from the "government" are not valid issues. 

It is written into the constitution that the citizenry should be allowed to possess weapons in an ordered fashion.  That should be debated on it's own grounds and is the only valid issue.  Their reasons for owning those weapons isn't important, so long as it is in an orderly fashion. 

That means the penalties and accountability for misuse must be so great that most will simply choose not to use them in the first place.  There must be no leeway for "mistakes", as the potential cost to others is too great.  Let's make one thing clear, a weapon has only one intended use.  That is to kill the living creature it is aimed at as efficiently as possible.  A car and a baseball bat can both be used as deadly weapons.  A gun is nothing but a deadly weapon.

Thus, I support the principle of carrying and owning of small arms, concealed or not.  I do not support many of the reasons and excuses used as leverage to allow it. 

I disagree.  This is a real issue and we ARE heading toward towards public disarmament.  Another "assault weapons" ban is a form of public disarmament.  No Gun zones are No Defense zones.  Wisconsin and Illinois outlawed Concealed Carry, THAT is public disarmament.  If outlawing gun ownership, of any kind, helps to reduce violent or non-violent crime, you let me know.  I would be interested in hearing about that. 

What isn't talked about are the proactive things that can be done to reduce crime, rather than the reactive things, like use of weapons.  Nobody wants to talk about the actual *cause* of crime.  They would rather talk about dealing with it when it arises.

Contrary to popular belief, the threat of deadly force though the use of small arms is not a deterrent force as defined by the U.S. Army. If it was, we wouldn't have wars.  Use of a weapon is a reactive measure.  This is why a US Amy MP is taught to never draw his weapon until he intends to use it.  When he reaches for his weapon, the decision to use it has already been made. 

Only the Atomic Bomb is defined as a deterrent weapon.  Only the threat of total, complete, and utter destruction is a significant deterrent.

The problem we face in arming the American public in it's entirety is the criminal element will change tactics.  Rather than mug you face to face, they'll take a proactive course and shoot you first with a silenced rifle from beyond your effective range, then take your wallet.  The arms race is a fact of crime as much as war.

We must look to the cause of crime first.  Armed citizens will be able to react to some crime, but most criminals will simply change tactics and equipment.

I agree that the economy is more of an emergent issue, I'm worried about my job security just as many others are Im sure, however, with Obama, Emmanuel, and Holder and the influence of the Brady Campaign - increased legislation is practically inevitable.

It is possible.

I have researched FBI studies regarding "gun control".  I don't belong to the left or right.  Our two party system is failing our country and it's sad.  How would you have me post quotes from deceased leaders of our country?  Surely if I had not mentioned that my source was another board, you would not have known.  If you would like me to provide you with some letters I've write regularly to my congressmen I can certainly do so.  I think people ought to be aware of certain things, and there are too many that stand by and do nothing for what they believe in. 

The two-party system is failing our country, I agree.  They are mired down in idealistic battles of little import and are failing the American people in the job of keeping the trains running on time.

This country is falling back, back to where it came from, repeating all that history over again.  In the process, the American people as a whole are becoming frustrated.  Frustrated with themselves, with their jobs, with their family, and with their government. 

If the house is not brought into order, you'll have  armed Americans fighting other armed Americans with no clear purpose in mind other than to "get back" at the forces they perceive as the problem.  Do I mean civil war?  No, I'm not an Anarchist.  A war is, by definition, a defining conflict.  Crime is not a defining conflict.

Which one's do not agree with?  Let's talk about it.

Some of them are taken out of context.

The Franklin quote is from his notes in 1775 while preparing for a session of the Pennsylvania Assembly regarding a treaty with England, not the control of arms in America. 

George Mason's and Noah Webster's quotes are rather out of date.  The machine gun, armored personnel carrier, bomber, and a few other destructive inventions of more modern men made those views obsolete by WWI. 

Unless the citizen should have access to modern equipment of mass destruction, that they will purchase it in sufficient quantity, and they will organize such that an effective order of force emerges, there is no standing up to a professional army with such equipment.   For the citizen, that is the job of the pen, an instrument far less understood and far more difficult to operate than the sword.

I completely disagree with the Patrick Henry comment.  Force takes many forms.  The rifle is one of the least effective methods of projecting force, as defined by the US Army.