The founders were guaranteeing the right to have a single shot muzzle-loader, and a sword...

They might have wanted some refinements in that amendment if they had known what was coming...
...

Serowbot wrote on 06/04/15 at 11:24:42:


No, I don't think so. In fact, had they known or imagined the advancement of firearms, they might have insisted citizens have equal access. Remember their intent: citizens need a method to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. With this sort of reasoning, why would they have ensured citizens would always be 5 or  6 steps behind government weapons?

They probably did not imagine future US citizens would so willingly cede control over so much of their freedom.

Serowbot wrote on 06/04/15 at 11:24:42:

Nope
The reason for the Second amendment, at it's base, is the prevention of tyranny
The founders had just fought a long bloody war to throw off a government they saw as tyrannical, and didn't want the citizens of the new republic to be subject to tyranny from the newly created government down the line, because they recognized that power corrupts, and any government will always seek to increase it's own power
The purpose of the 2nd is to give the Citizen the ability to combat that possibility, up to and including the throwing down of our own government
We'd look pretty silly going against an average infantryman with a musket and a sword
We'd look pretty silly doing it with a Pistol. too, but not near as silly as with a musket and a sword
The 2nd, as all the original 10 amendments, is about Libety

And the founders weren't guaranteeing squat, they were recognizing a right they considered god given, or, to non believers, basic human rights

You're right, you didn't
Color me embarrassed
I believe I must apologize

Serowbot wrote on 06/04/15 at 11:24:42:

'tis arguable.
"God created all men, but Sam Colt made them equal"
Our founding fathers intended that everyone may own a firearm.
If you say now, only the government can have multi fire weapons, I think you've just made the government superior to the citizen, never mind the outlaw.

This is funny...
http://washingtonpost.com.co/gun-owners-forced-to-submit-to-dna-and-iq-testing/

You are completely wrong on that account. Citizens can and do defend themselves against a warring government or when there is no government against an invading army. I would point to the French resistance in WWII for example, or look how the drug cartels in Mexico survive and thrive despite basically a war waged upon them. You could even point to the South in the Civil War given the huge disparity in weapon superiority the North had.

The difference is the government is not going to carpet bomb cities and bulldozing the remains over. Tucson is not going to be nuked into the desert.  A government takeover would be more like an escalated policing action.  Soldiers would show up house to house, ID cards issued, the ability to purchase goods would be controlled etc… That’s how a government takeover would happen. (you know, pretty much like the liberals want to do now…)

So a citizenry armed with available guns could in fact defend themselves and retain some semblance of our nation.

And your comments about the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment and militia are dead wrong as well. Read what Madison and many of the founders wrote at the time. They knew exactly what they were doing. Remember, they had just defeated the top military power of the world at that time. The price England would have had to pay to win that war would have been too much and certainly would have lead to yet another confrontation with France.

We should play a ‘what if’ game.

Imagine what would happen if Obama said, ‘you know what, I’m staying in office’. Imagine if the Joint Chiefs all agreed and a coup against the US Constitution occurred with the top military leaders joining in. What would happen? How many of the current military would ‘follow orders’?

Granted, it’s probably impossible right now that that would happen but 10 years from now when the government is even further in every aspect of our lives? Are you telling me that’s an impossibility?

Quote:


Wow, I'm in full agreement with Serow on this one.  

What is not in the front page is when they do implement martial law.  You may have caught a glimpse, but they went house to house during Katrina.  They also went house to house in Boston when they were looking for the bombers.  

Pea-shooter is correct, and they'll take that if they want too.

Best regards,