The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Politics & Current Events / Conservative Fools


Subject:  Re: Magnificent takedown of Piers Date:  1/12/2013  5:43 AM
Author:  Vile Number:  114053 of 165991

"Would you mind supporting your assertion with actual facts? In this case, please provide statements from the framers showing they intended for arms ownership to be ubiquitous in order to make a mob rebellion easier? (Just a few of them will do, since they were not of unanimous opinion on this or much else.) Jefferson's "tree of liberty" statement might be a good start, but be careful about the context."

You rely on the Shay's rebellion argument like it is the only point in history that actually matters. Clue: it isn't the be all and end all to this argument though I do have one.

While history is replete with quotes that support our contention, we do not need a lot. We really only need one from one of the authors of the second amendment, actully two. The author I speak of is George Mason.

"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, 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, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia."

There is a first. This is a two fold reminder. One, that America was shaking off the chains of tyranny England had wrapped around them and thus one could reasonably deduce the founding fathers wanted no government to ever again enslave the America people.

Two, history is replete with tyrannical governments slowly disarming the people. What our government is proposing now we already know will not fix the problem they are supposedly addressing and it is a slow disarming of the American people. Handguns are used to kill more children than any other gun in America. If this were truly about the children, we would be talking about banning all guns.

The second quote which supports the first quote and our argument.

"Who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

So here is the answer to the age old question about who the second amendment refers to and it is answered by one of its very authors.

Indeed, an idiot would say that the second amendment would only apply to the militia thinking it supported their argument that it was not an individual right. They would ignore the fact that everywhere the term "the people" refers to individual rights but in only one place in the entire thing it would not refer to the individual. This defies logic.

Despite what any leftist with a limited view of our founders intent says, they believed in the natural right of man to throw off their oppressors no matter who they were. They even believed one day our own government might become oppressive and we had the unalienable right to overthrow it and establish a new government. That is really part of the whole basis of a representative governmet. If they are no longer representing you, if they are oppressive, then it is time to get rid of them. These men would have believed that more than anyone.

There are those who say we couldn't possibly win against the government anyway. One, the government is ensuring that by taking away weapons for no other reason than they don't like them. Two, the military is part of the citizenry too and there is no one who can say 1/4, a 1/2, or 2/3's of those won't join in any potential rebellion that might happen. Why would you trust a government that would disarm you while giving you a clearly bogus excuse as to why they are?

The second amendment says the "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." By taking specific guns and capabilities away from us is an attempt to infringe on our rights. It is nothing more than a naked gun grab as nothing they are talking about would have stopped Sandy Hook from happening. Nothing. Anyone who argues otherwise is arguing from a position of ignorance or dishonesty.


Copyright 1996-2018 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us