Writings of the FOUNDING FATHERS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

[JohnyJuice]

Hmmm, sure we're not violent at all are we?

do a websearch for" COLUMBINE

Hey, following your logic, if guns were illegal those Columbine retards wouldnt have been able to get them, right? Well, pipe bombs arent legal either, yet they had those. They also didnt buy the guns legally, i might add.

 

[RyanH]

Chesty--

I will be more than happy to take you up on your challenge, but it will take me a day or so to sort through all the quotes.

Keep this thread, and you'll have my response by Saturday evening, possibly sooner.

I can't wait to prove you wrong.

Because most of us know------that I will.

Ryan.

 

[chesty]

whatever, talk to the hand.

You cannot prove wrong, what is right.

 

[Kryp2o]

I can't wait to prove you wrong.

Because most of us know------that I will.

Ryan.

All those voices in your head talking to you again I see.

 

[JohnyJuice]

Bump for Ryan-Homo's idiocy.

 

[Sushi X]

still waiting.....

 

[3timer]

Chesty - As always, a great post. I am saving the quotes to use on misguided liberals that I am embarrassed to say I know. It's fun to fuck with them anyway.

There was a post maybe 6 months ago listing a bunch of countries that took away their citizens right to arms and what happened as a result. It mentioned Nazi Germany, North Korea, and a lot of others I cant remember. It also mentioned how much crime has increased in Australia since that country passed stiffer laws. The facts speak for themselves. Maybe I oversimplify the issue but to me the bottom line is that heroin, etc are all illegal and easily available at low prices. Why would guns be any different if they were made illegal. The end result would be an armed criminal population and unarmed law-abiding citizens. It's not that hard to figure out what would be next.

RyanH - How can you possibly say you have experienced more than SushiX without backing it up with specifics.

I have been on this board for about 2 years. Under different names because I forget my password or change email addy's or change providers. Anyway, one question. WHY was a fuck like RyanH made a moderator. He cannot compare in any way, shape or form with the likes of E2 and the rest.

 

[RyanH]

Richard Henry Lee:
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary...the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed and disciplined, and include ... all men capable of bearing arms;..." Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer at 169 (1788) Walter Bennett, ed., at 21,22,124 ( Univ. of Alabama Press, 1975)

Analyzing each of these quotes will be a tedious task, but throughout the next couple of weeks I will analyze at least one quote a day. The first quote is the one from above by Richard Henry Lee..I have uncovered the following in my research:

What the militia was about was really the right of the people to participate in the military functions of the state rather than leave those functions up to the regular army, a separate order of the state" which in the eighteenth century was usually composed of mercenaries, foreigners and social misfits.

The militiamen were citizen soldiers rooted in their communities.The very quote you provide above describe the militia explicitly as an opposing concept to the regular army. The right was not a right against any and all government. The Militia Act of 1792, enacted by the same people who ratified the Second Amendment, expressed the eighteenth century concept of the militia and what it imposed on individuals.

The Militia Act required the states to "enroll", or register— militiamen. Militia duty was conscript duty. The regular army was not. The dozens of state militia acts that followed from the national act were loaded with rules imposed on gun owners. There were no protections mentioned for a personal right to be armed independent of militia that you seek to find.

Thus, Chesty, when referring to the militia, recall what the militia, in fact, was, and that the militia was REGULATED.

Thus, your gun ownership should and will continue to be strongly regulated----the past tells us so.

Ryan.

 

[minion]

CryanH, I bet you think you made sense?

 

[chesty]

The very first sentence says

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary

this expressely tells that he means the individual person

next we find

the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed and disciplined

There is no mention of regulation by Henry Lee. On the contrary he states organized, armed and disciplined Again it is the people (individual) to whom he is referring

Lastly,

all men capable of bearing arms

Here he states all men capable of bearing arms, what else can be made of this other than all men that are capable of bearing arms.

The Militia Act required the states to "enroll", or register— militiamen. Militia duty was conscript duty. The regular army was not. The dozens of state militia acts that followed from the national act were loaded with rules imposed on gun owners. There were no protections mentioned for a personal right to be armed independent of militia that you seek to find


If you look at just about any state constitution you will find language that protects the individuals right to bear arms. Arizona for example, Nevada, Texas, etc.

Even Arkansas required men to own and carry a concealed weapon and it was illegal to not do so. If you could not afford a gun of your own the state would provide it for you. Hmmm, wonder why?

RyanH
What the militia was about was really the right of the people to participate in the military functions of the state

The militia is not about a persons right to be in a military function, but rather the persons right to bear arms against an enemy. The militia which is composed of individuals who are not in a standing army were important and are important to the one end to prevent a standing army from becoming too powerful if one should be formed (as it has been) The only way for a person to be of any use in a militia that may be called was/is to possess arms and be in practice in their use.

It was recognized long ago that only freemen possessed arms no matter the century and therefore, what the founding fathers wanted was a populace of individuals that were armed so that at any time they may be called upon to defend the Country.

When regulated is mentioned it is not referring to the possession of arms but rather on the conduct and training of the body of persons assembled in time of need forming the militia.

Try again.