Share and share alike.
October 9, 2013 at 10:36 pm
The men of the Revolution often carried rifled muskets, which were far in advance of the smoothbore muskets used by the British army. So much so, that after their defeat by the Colonials, the British army gradually increased the proportion of rifles into their inventory. This greatly helped Wellington beat Napolean's armies in the Penninsular wars. So the use of advanced weaponry was a feature of the Founding Fathers' approach to defeating tyranny.
January 20, 2013 at 1:49 am
And as a side note, these 'control' advocates care little to not at all about the 2nd amendment or guns. Its not about that folks. Its just about control. That's it.
January 20, 2013 at 11:32 am
I concur. Tyranny is the real enemy. Somewhere-in an oath I took long ago-I swore to defend the Constitution of the United States of America against ALL ENEMYS-FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.
January 20, 2013 at 1:43 am
Actually, our forefathers were far more intelligent to think that there would be no advancement in weaponry. In fact, they DID envision advancments and that is why they put in the clause that says, "..shall not be infringed.".
January 19, 2013 at 4:25 pm
wake up! there is a rifle! a machine gun! there also are pistols.... revolvers! and auto loaders. WHY are you still saying the term assault weapon?
January 20, 2013 at 11:33 am
er, they are tools. I'm just sayin'
January 19, 2013 at 11:44 am
When I was in the Corps, back in 76, we had the M-16 and it did not become an assault weapon until we placed the bayonet on to it , other wise it was just a rifle, no body said , Pick up your assault rifle and lets go!
January 20, 2013 at 2:01 am
It 'became' an assault rifle because the media framed it that way and we didn't challenge it. Like right now, they are calling themselves 'gun control advocates' and so we are adapting to that. I say NO. call it what it is. Lets call them, 'CONTROL' advocates because that's exactly what they are.
January 20, 2013 at 2:02 am
And while we are at it, let's ask them to define an assault rifle!! Lol
March 1, 2013 at 4:12 am
anything they think is scary looking
January 19, 2013 at 10:05 am
Protection against tyranny starts with semi-auto firearms. It doesn't end there.
January 19, 2013 at 4:32 am
The founding fathers knew nothing about todays weapons...
January 19, 2013 at 4:35 am
So? They knew nothing about television or the internet. Does that mean that those are not protected by the First Amendment?
Thomas Reedy III:
January 19, 2013 at 5:12 am
They didn't know about today weapon systems, but they had the for sight to see how a government could end up corrupted. That's is why we have (had)the right to bare arms. It is not about the types of weapons but the protection against evils.
January 19, 2013 at 6:09 am
I am a liberal gun owner. Do you really think you can take on the US military with an assault rifle? Against anti-tank guns, fighter jets, bombs, etc? Good luck if you do. And don't think the soldiers will rush to your side. They have sworn an oath to the USA and my experience with the current military is that they take that oath very seriously. They are much more likely to be pointing a gun (or tank, or fighter jet) at you than be on your side.
If you have kids, I hope you have a gun safe and keep the key where only you have access to it. We taught our daughter about guns as a child, and she started hunting at the age of 14, but we don't have assault rifles in our house. We have a gun safe that stays locked and the key is not just sitting nearby, not because we worry about her, She is 24 now and an experienced shooter and hunter, and a damn good one. We keep it locked up and anchored to the wall so our guns don't get stolen and wind up in the wrong hands!
January 19, 2013 at 6:15 am
Without going through a lengthly, involved process, we are not allowed to own assault weapons. The United States Military has said: an assault weapon is a firearm capable of being switched between single shot and full automatic mode.
January 19, 2013 at 6:17 am
NO ONE IS TRYING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY, NOR MINE EITHER. THE SPEECH WAS ON YouTUBE. Go watch it before you make a bigger ass of yourselves than you already have. And by the way, there is no provision in the US Constitution for gun ownership for reasons other than being a member of a militia. The Supreme Court made that ruling, on their own authority.
January 19, 2013 at 8:00 am
Technology has changed and other social norms have too. We got rid of slavery, which, by the way, was one of the main reasons for keeping an armed white populace. Government has slowly evolved over time from feudal kings to our fledgling democracy. As noted above, our democracy has changed and improved. The founding fathers didn't know everything (we don't either) so we have the opportunity to change and create a more just, equitable and less violent society.
January 19, 2013 at 1:43 pm
Wow Margie. What rock have you been living under? The supreme court has upheld multiple times that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, and not a collective right, as with a militia. In the Heller case in 2010, the majority ruling written by Justice Antonin Scalia stated that the 2nd Amendment "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
January 19, 2013 at 1:55 pm
Joe. About the only thing you got right was that we don't know everything, especially when referring to yourself. You say "fledgling democracy" as if you are a seasoned expert on forms of government. But you don't seem to be aware that we are a Republic, not a Democracy. None of which has anything to do with the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment says the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Keep, as in they are mine, and you can't take them away. Bear, as in if you meet me on the streets, I'm carrying a gun, and its loaded. The 2nd Amendment exists because the founding fathers felt that free men had the right to protect themselves, period. Advances in technology change nothing about that. You say you want to change the constitution so we can have a "more just, equitable and less violent society". As if my owning a gun to defend myself somehow prevents that. In fact, it does the opposite.
Kent A. Lang:
January 19, 2013 at 2:00 pm
A majority of the people I know in the military as well as law enforcement can't stand Obama and his abuse of the Executive Order. (that's when you by-pass congress to do whatever a minority wants!) I'd say the military and police would be very divided and many states are or have already adapted laws to protect it's citizens 2nd Amendment rights. As for fighting against tanks fighter planes etc. ever heard of guerrilla warfare? How well will those planes, more likely drones, going to be in an urban setting? . There are alot of upset military persons back from the middle east who believe in their 2nd Amendment rights. It may not be the US Military fighting Citizens it might be NATO and they'd most likely have to go door to door and do you think they'll care about your American Cinstitutional rights? As for the "Asault Weapon" ban have you looked at the statistics? Do you know the crime rate in American has actually gone down since the previous "Assault Weapons" Ban expired in 2004 and there was not enough support in congress to reinact it? Feinstein's wants to ban all guns but only goes for the low hanging fruit she can convince the public with. But hey she's been a politician for 18+ years now! Can you say TERM LIMITS?! That Ruger 10-22 in your gun safe, which has been popular for over 43 years is considered "Assault Weapon" under the proposed legislation.
January 19, 2013 at 2:17 pm
Oh and Margie, in regards to your statement that military has taken an oath to the USA. Your ignorance is hanging out all over the place. I quote the opening of the military oath of office...."I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Note they are sworn, above all other things, to defend the uphold the CONSTITUTION.
Lewis E. Gordon:
January 19, 2013 at 2:41 pm
May I suggest they do take their oath seriously, but it is to protect the constitution of the USA.
January 19, 2013 at 3:09 pm
Ask the Syrians how they are doing against Assad. It seems to be working there.
January 19, 2013 at 4:28 pm
Mike, You mean they have been lying to me all these years that this is a democracy? Why do we vote then? Perhaps you're right. It doesn't behave like a democracy, with our coin operated congress and all the corporations and the NRA calling the shots. https://www.facebook.com/UnitedCorporationsOfAmerica
January 19, 2013 at 4:50 pm
Margie, the US could never use fighter jets and tanks or Nuclear missles against its own people our soldiers would never fight against our own people. We are their families, they know that they are there to protect our freedom, not to take it away.And YES, I do believe that millions of armed American Patriots could retake this country if the need arises! history Proves it can be done!
January 20, 2013 at 11:38 am
I agree. I watched the Ohio national guard KILL 4 un-armed students. Listen to Crosby, Stills & Nash- Four Dead in Ohio.