In their own words: What the Founding fathers really believed about guns

[bennysdad]

When the Founding Fathers approved the “right to bear arms” and the 13 newly formed states agreed to ratify the Second Amendment, the reason couldn’t be clearer: An armed citizenry is a free citizenry.

Yet despite the clear historical evidence showing the true intention behind the Second Amendment, liberals continue to mislead the public by asserting the founders believed the Second Amendment only protects guns necessary for everyday life in the 18th century, such as hunting rifles, or that the founders believed these constitutional protections apply only to militias, not to individuals.

Full Story: https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/04/04/commentary-in-their-own-words-what-the-founding-fathers-really-believed-about-guns

[Greybeard]

I've read those quotes a number of times. The problem is that the "Gun Grabbers/Gun Control Crowd" can also read, but don't want to accept the truth. Their approach now is to say that "times have changed", and so must The Constitution! While it is true that times have changed, the threats of yesteryear have not changed for the better, they have worsened!! We are now spied upon by our own government in ways not imagined when the Founding Fathers were in charge. The need and ability to defend ourselves has become greater, not lesser. A benevolent government would not have an interest in disarming its citizens, rather it would rather strengthen us against attack by invaders. /rant

[GreyGeek]

...The problem is that the "Gun Grabbers/Gun Control Crowd" can also read, but don't want to accept the truth. Their approach now is to say that "times have changed", and so must The Constitution! ....

I've heard some of them claim that the 2A only approved of muskets, etc... My counter is that if so, by that same logic, only quill pens can be used to write with, and all writing and communication devices created after Constitution do not have 1A protection.

[hilowe]

I've heard some of them claim that the 2A only approved of muskets, etc... My counter is that if so, by that same logic, only quill pens can be used to write with, and all writing and communication devices created after Constitution do not have 1A protection.

You can always add on 4th amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.  "Founding fathers never could have imagined of a cell phone, much less the one you have in your pocket with a camera, etc.  By your logic with the 2nd amendment, the 4th amendment doesn't apply to cell phones.  Hand it over to the nice police officer so he can look at your photos, make sure you're not creating kiddy porn."

[Dalamar]

You can always add on 4th amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.  "Founding fathers never could have imagined of a cell phone, much less the one you have in your pocket with a camera, etc.  By your logic with the 2nd amendment, the 4th amendment doesn't apply to cell phones.  Hand it over to the nice police officer so he can look at your photos, make sure you're not creating kiddy porn."

It doesn't.
A lawyer I had had his phone taken from him which is certainly an unreasonable seizure, he was in a crash which was not his fault, and I don't think they gave him his phone back, he had to get a new one. (the actual incident was in IOWA)
Neither does the 5th. https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2017/09/01/ex-cop-who-wont-decrypt-hard-drives-still-in-jail-indefinitely/

[depserv]

Hey guys these are all reasonable restrictions so your caring big brother can protect you better.  Don't you want to be protected?  And think about the kids.  Who cares what Ben Franklin said about those who trade liberty for security; what did he know?

Those who use the reasonable restrictions lie like to remind us that NO right is unlimited.  So what that means is that the 2nd Amendment is like the canary in the mine: what they do to it they can and will do to all of our rights.

If our big brother really was serious about keeping our rights intact while enacting reasonable limits on them to keep us safe, there would have been a big, long, public discussion by now of what actually constitutes reasonableness, and we would have come up with criteria to use in determining reasonableness when it comes to limiting a Constitutional right.  But no such conversation has taken place.

And that's partly our fault, because we haven't tried to do it either.

Without some criteria for establishing how reasonableness is determined in this context, it's just a matter of what a majority of any legislative body decides to do.  No legislative body is going to consider a bill and say we think this is unreasonable, but we're going to pass it into law anyway.  So ultimately reasonableness is determined simply by majority vote.  And the result of that is that the right is no longer a right, it's a privilege, to be doled out at the discretion of our big brother protector.  Our former rights are subject to the will of the majority.  The former Constitutional republic is a de facto democracy.

The Court was set up to keep that from happening.  But that body has long been politicized, so it's just kind of a little bit bigger big brother.  And that big brother has done all too little to keep our rights from being turned into privileges.

I don't see anything coming along to change this process of erosion.  In fact from what I can see it looks like the process is accelerating.  The freedom we were born with will not be given to our sons.  We stood by and let it be stolen from them.

[Dan W]

Sharing a deep dive into the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Well worth your time to read. This was NOT written by me, only sharing.

“Regarding the governments ability to impose "Reasonable Restraint" which has now become the mantra of our government. Supporters of the Amendment claim they have a or Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Opponents counter that even if that were the case, the federal government was granted the general power to place restraints on the right. Both of these assertions are based on a misconception concerning the intent of the document known as the Bill of Rights.

When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the individual States for ratification, it was prefaced with a preamble. As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being recommended. The Amendments, when adopted, did not create any so-called constitutional rights or grant the federal government any power over individual rights; they placed additional restraints and qualifications on the powers of the federal government concerning the rights enumerated in the Amendments.

If the Second Amendment is read through the preamble, we find it was incorporated into the Bill of Rights as a “declaratory and restrictive clause” to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its power” to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.
Another way to understand the original intent of the Second Amendment is re-write it through the preamble:

“Because a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the federal government is expressly denied the power to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear Arms.”

The preamble and original intent of the Amendments has been suppressed by the institutions of government because it would expose their usurpation of power and perversion of Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.

By advancing the myth that the Amendments grant the American people their individual rights, the federal government has been able to convert enumerated restraints and qualifications on its power into legislative, executive, judicial and administrative power over individual rights. The federal government claims it was granted the constitutional authority to determine the extent of the individual rights enumerated in the Amendments and/or impose “reasonable restraints” on those rights. This assertion is absurd. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to ignore, circumvent, modify, negate or remove constitutional restraints placed on its power by the Amendments or convert them into a power over the individual right enumerated in the particular restraint.

A denial of power or an enumerated restraint on the exercise of power is not subject to interpretation or modification by the entity the restraint is being imposed upon. The restraints imposed by the Amendments, which were adopted 4 years after the Constitution was ratified, override the legislative, executive, judicial or administrative powers of the federal government. If this were not the case, then the restraints would be meaningless because the federal government could simply circumvent, modify or remove them. Why would the States have requested and adopted enumerated restraints on federal power, subsequent to their ratification of the Constitution, if the federal government possessed the authority to nullify them?

When the federal government infringes on one of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights it is not violating anyone’s constitutional rights; it is violating the additional restraint or qualification placed on its power by the particular Amendment where the right is enumerated. The distinction between rights and restraints is critical. [The right is not given by the Federal Government. Our rights are given by God and are inalienable. Therefore, they can't be limited or taken away.]

As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the American people have unalienable rights that come from a higher source than government or a written document. By acknowledging that people have natural rights, which are bestowed by a creator, the Founders laid the foundation for the principle that government does not have the lawful authority to take away or infringe on those rights. This principle was incorporated into the preamble and structure of the Amendments to secure individual rights from government encroachment; that is why they were designed and imposed as restraints on the exercise of power.

If the individual rights of the people had been created by the Constitution or an amendment to the document, then they would cease to be unalienable because the right would depend on the existence of a document. If the document or a provision of the document disappeared, so would the right. The belief that individual rights were created by a written document has opened the door for the federal government to claim the power to define the extent of any right enumerated in an Amendment. This has transformed constitutional restraints placed on federal power into subjective determinations of individual rights by the institutions of government. By failing to understand the difference between amendments that create rights and amendments that impose restraints on government, the American people are watching their individual rights vanish as they are reduced to the status of privileges bestowed by government because the constitutional restraints placed on federal power are being replaced by government decree.

Opponents of the Second Amendment always try to diminish the right enumerated in the Amendment by asserting that rights are not absolute. This is just another straw man argument because the Amendment is about imposing a restraint of the powers of the federal government concerning a right: not granting a right or defining the extent of a right. In addition, a review of the Second Amendment shows that the restraint imposed by the Amendment does not contain any exceptions.”

Written by a fellow patriot mr barker