Agnostic.com

6 9

Anyone who suggest that the founding fathers wanted to enable private militias with weapons so that they could overthrow the federal government if they did not like what the government is doing is a damned fool ignorant of history. You need to be reminded of the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War. Also such an intent is a recipe for political instability and chaos.

wordywalt 9 June 6
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

6 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

4

It’s the cult of the gun, blessed by Jesus who tells their witch doctors that they can’t lose. If they fail then America falls. A bunch of puppets supporting their metaphoric anti-Christ.

1

I’d recommend a history lesson

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."

  • Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, son-in-law of John Adams, December 20, 1787

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

  • Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

  • Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

  • Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

  • Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
1

"WELL REGULATED"

Yep. Not un-regulated.

4

The number of Americans who are manifestly and dangerously ignorant of the history of their own country is quite alarming.

Americans’ ignorance quite alarms Aussies? [grin]

3

Up to the point where Trump is re-elected, the country is turned into a Russian client-state, and Christianity is made mandatory.

3

I have heard this part of 2A described as a sop to slaveholders, that they would never be stripped of the ability to take up arms if their chattel got restless. Here is one account:
[npr.org]

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:670278
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.