Jump to content
Scout

The Founding Fathers supported GUN CONTROL just like present day sane Americans.

Recommended Posts

Consider these five categories of gun laws that the Founders endorsed.

#1: Registration

Today American gun rights advocates typically oppose any form of registration – even though such schemes are common in every other industrial democracy – and typically argue that registration violates the Second Amendment. This claim is also hard to square with the history of the nation’s founding. All of the colonies – apart from Quaker-dominated Pennsylvania, the one colony in which religious pacifists blocked the creation of a militia – enrolled local citizens, white men between the ages of 16-60 in state-regulated militias. The colonies and then the newly independent states kept track of these privately owned weapons required for militia service. Men could be fined if they reported to a muster without a well-maintained weapon in working condition.

#2: Public carry

The modern gun rights movement has aggressively pursued the goal of expanding the right to carry firearms in public.

The American colonies inherited a variety of restrictions that evolved under English Common Law. In 18th-century England, armed travel was limited to a few well-defined occasions such as assisting justices of the peace and constables. Members of the upper classes also had a limited exception to travel with arms. Concealable weapons such as handguns were subject to even more stringent restrictions. The city of London banned public carry of these weapons entirely.

The American Revolution did not sweep away English common law. In fact, most colonies adopted common law as it had been interpreted in the colonies prior to independence, including the ban on traveling armed in populated areas. Thus, there was no general right of armed travel when the Second Amendment was adopted, and certainly no right to travel with concealed weapons. Such a right first emerged in the United States in the slave South decades after the Second Amendment was adopted. The market revolution of the early 19th century made cheap and reliable hand guns readily available. Southern murder rates soared as a result.

In other parts of the nation, the traditional English restrictions on traveling armed persisted with one important change. American law recognized an exception to this prohibition for individuals who had a good cause to fear an imminent threat. Nonetheless, by the end of the century, prohibiting public carry was the legal norm, not the exception.

#3: Stand-your-ground laws

Under traditional English common law, one had a duty to retreat, not stand your ground. Deadly force was justified only if no other alternative was possible. One had to retreat, until retreat was no longer possible, before killing an aggressor.

The use of deadly force was justified only in the home, where retreat was not required under the so-called castle doctrine, or the idea that “a man’s home is his castle.” The emergence of a more aggressive view of the right of self-defense in public, standing your ground, emerged slowly in the decades after the Civil War.

#4: Safe storage laws

Although some gun rights advocates attempt to demonize government power, it is important to recognize that one of the most important rights citizens enjoy is the freedom to elect representatives who can enact laws to promote health and public safety. This is the foundation for the idea of ordered liberty. The regulation of gun powder and firearms arises from an exercise of this basic liberty.

In 1786, Boston acted on this legal principle, prohibiting the storage of a loaded firearm in any domestic dwelling in the city. Guns had to be kept unloaded, a practice that made sense since the black powder used in firearms in this period was corrosive. Loaded guns also posed a particular hazard in cases of fire because they might discharge and injure innocent bystanders and those fighting fires.

#5: Loyalty oaths

One of the most common claims one hears in the modern Second Amendment debate is the assertion that the Founders included this provision in the Constitution to make possible a right of revolution. But this claim, too, rests on a serious misunderstanding of the role the right to bear arms played in American constitutional theory.

In fact, the Founders engaged in large-scale disarmament of the civilian population during the American Revolution. The right to bear arms was conditional on swearing a loyalty oath to the government. Individuals who refused to swear such an oath were disarmed.

The notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against the government is absurd. Indeed, the Constitution itself defines such an act as treason.

 

Gun regulation and gun ownership have always existed side by side in American history. The Second Amendment poses no obstacle to enacting sensible gun laws. The failure to do so is not the Constitution’s fault; it is ours. -- Saul Cornell

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scout said:

Today American gun rights advocates typically oppose any form of registration

When you but a gun... it is registered you fukking retarded kunt!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#3: Stand-your-ground laws

Under traditional English common law, one had a duty to retreat, not stand your ground. Deadly force was justified only if no other alternative was possible. One had to retreat, until retreat was no longer possible, before killing an aggressor.

The use of deadly force was justified only in the home, where retreat was not required under the so-called castle doctrine, or the idea that “a man’s home is his castle.” The emergence of a more aggressive view of the right of self-defense in public, standing your ground, emerged slowly in the decades after the Civil War.

TOTAL BS! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scout said:

Consider these five categories of gun laws that the Founders endorsed.

#1: Registration

Today American gun rights advocates typically oppose any form of registration – even though such schemes are common in every other industrial democracy – and typically argue that registration violates the Second Amendment. This claim is also hard to square with the history of the nation’s founding. All of the colonies – apart from Quaker-dominated Pennsylvania, the one colony in which religious pacifists blocked the creation of a militia – enrolled local citizens, white men between the ages of 16-60 in state-regulated militias. The colonies and then the newly independent states kept track of these privately owned weapons required for militia service. Men could be fined if they reported to a muster without a well-maintained weapon in working condition.

#2: Public carry

The modern gun rights movement has aggressively pursued the goal of expanding the right to carry firearms in public.

The American colonies inherited a variety of restrictions that evolved under English Common Law. In 18th-century England, armed travel was limited to a few well-defined occasions such as assisting justices of the peace and constables. Members of the upper classes also had a limited exception to travel with arms. Concealable weapons such as handguns were subject to even more stringent restrictions. The city of London banned public carry of these weapons entirely.

The American Revolution did not sweep away English common law. In fact, most colonies adopted common law as it had been interpreted in the colonies prior to independence, including the ban on traveling armed in populated areas. Thus, there was no general right of armed travel when the Second Amendment was adopted, and certainly no right to travel with concealed weapons. Such a right first emerged in the United States in the slave South decades after the Second Amendment was adopted. The market revolution of the early 19th century made cheap and reliable hand guns readily available. Southern murder rates soared as a result.

In other parts of the nation, the traditional English restrictions on traveling armed persisted with one important change. American law recognized an exception to this prohibition for individuals who had a good cause to fear an imminent threat. Nonetheless, by the end of the century, prohibiting public carry was the legal norm, not the exception.

#3: Stand-your-ground laws

Under traditional English common law, one had a duty to retreat, not stand your ground. Deadly force was justified only if no other alternative was possible. One had to retreat, until retreat was no longer possible, before killing an aggressor.

The use of deadly force was justified only in the home, where retreat was not required under the so-called castle doctrine, or the idea that “a man’s home is his castle.” The emergence of a more aggressive view of the right of self-defense in public, standing your ground, emerged slowly in the decades after the Civil War.

#4: Safe storage laws

Although some gun rights advocates attempt to demonize government power, it is important to recognize that one of the most important rights citizens enjoy is the freedom to elect representatives who can enact laws to promote health and public safety. This is the foundation for the idea of ordered liberty. The regulation of gun powder and firearms arises from an exercise of this basic liberty.

In 1786, Boston acted on this legal principle, prohibiting the storage of a loaded firearm in any domestic dwelling in the city. Guns had to be kept unloaded, a practice that made sense since the black powder used in firearms in this period was corrosive. Loaded guns also posed a particular hazard in cases of fire because they might discharge and injure innocent bystanders and those fighting fires.

#5: Loyalty oaths

One of the most common claims one hears in the modern Second Amendment debate is the assertion that the Founders included this provision in the Constitution to make possible a right of revolution. But this claim, too, rests on a serious misunderstanding of the role the right to bear arms played in American constitutional theory.

In fact, the Founders engaged in large-scale disarmament of the civilian population during the American Revolution. The right to bear arms was conditional on swearing a loyalty oath to the government. Individuals who refused to swear such an oath were disarmed.

The notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against the government is absurd. Indeed, the Constitution itself defines such an act as treason.

 

Gun regulation and gun ownership have always existed side by side in American history. The Second Amendment poses no obstacle to enacting sensible gun laws. The failure to do so is not the Constitution’s fault; it is ours. -- Saul Cornell

 

Now we know why you and your ilk keep trying to rewrite history by raising these false narratives.....

You don't understand the meaning of....

The right to bear arms ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Whitemajikman said:

Now we know why you and your ilk keep trying to rewrite history by raising these false narratives.....

You don't understand the meaning of....

The right to bear arms ...

 

 

Obviously, I understand it just fine.  I don't have to make up claims about it like gun nutters such as yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scout said:

 

Obviously, I understand it just fine.  I don't have to make up claims about it like gun nutters such as yourself.

What do you know about guns exactly? Or do you just hate them cuz?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Imgreatagain said:

#3: Stand-your-ground laws

Under traditional English common law, one had a duty to retreat, not stand your ground. Deadly force was justified only if no other alternative was possible. One had to retreat, until retreat was no longer possible, before killing an aggressor.

The use of deadly force was justified only in the home, where retreat was not required under the so-called castle doctrine, or the idea that “a man’s home is his castle.” The emergence of a more aggressive view of the right of self-defense in public, standing your ground, emerged slowly in the decades after the Civil War.

TOTAL BS! 

 

I notice how you are incapable of defending yourself against the facts I posted.

That tells us all we need to know about what is and is not "BS".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scout said:

 

I notice how you are incapable of defending yourself against the facts I posted.

That tells us all we need to know about what is and is not "BS".

they are opinions... not facts you fukking kunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scout said:

 

I notice how you are incapable of defending yourself against the facts I posted.

That tells us all we need to know about what is and is not "BS".

Again, what do you know about guns? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scout said:

 

I notice how you are incapable of defending yourself against the facts I posted.

That tells us all we need to know about what is and is not "BS".

Your facts are cherry picked snippets which don't give an accurate caricature of what the founding fathers thought about our right to bear arms ......

You are essentially trying to raise a false narrative purely for political purposes and your own personal wants and needs.......trying to claim it's fact.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Imgreatagain said:

What do you know about guns exactly? Or do you just hate them cuz?

 

Why must one have knowledge of guns to know they should be limited? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scout said:

 

Why must one have knowledge of guns to know they should be limited? 

LMFAO so you want to take the rights away from fellow Americans because you don't like guns... got it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Scout said:

 

Why must one have knowledge of guns to know they should be limited? 

It matters. You want to ban guns and you don't even know what their capabilities are. 

GUNS BAD 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Imgreatagain said:

Again, what do you know about guns? 

 

I know you are trying to change the subject of gun control.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scout said:

 

I know you are trying to change the subject of gun control.

 

If you wan to control something, should't you understand that which you are trying to control?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scout said:

 

I know you are trying to change the subject of gun control.

 

yet you post an op and don't know shiit about guns... priceless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Whitemajikman said:

Your facts are cherry picked snippets which don't give an accurate caricature of what the founding fathers thought about our right to bear arms ......

You are essentially trying to raise a false narrative purely for political purposes and your own personal wants and needs.......trying to claim it's fact.

 

 

There are no cherry picked snippets.  You recognize your lack of knowledge and are trying to blame others.

My report is VERY accurate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody explain why a person must know about guns?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Duck615 said:

yet you post an op and don't know shiit about guns... priceless

Right? And I call her out on it and she can't quite see the point in knowing anything about the subject 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scout said:

 

There are no cherry picked snippets.  You recognize your lack of knowledge and are trying to blame others.

My report is VERY accurate. 

You still haven't answered my question. What do you know about guns? 

anything. give me anything here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Imgreatagain said:

If you wan to control something, should't you understand that which you are trying to control?

 

No. 

I think there should be speed limits and it requires no expertise of auto mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IGA:  Just admit you can't defend your opposition to gun control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Scout said:

 

Why must one have knowledge of guns to know they should be limited? 

 

If a man tried to rape you, would you fight back?

Would you rather reach into your purse or fanny pack, and come out with one of those little, .380 James Bond

pistols and try to blow his genitals off...…..or would you rather just pull your panties down and bend over?       😲

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scout said:

 

No. 

I think there should be speed limits and it requires no expertise of auto mechanics.

But you have rode in a car, probably driven one. you are surrounded by them daily. You get the basic idea of cars. You can tell the difference between a truck and a VW beetle .. do see where I'm going with this? 

Car accidents happen. We do not ban the cars. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scout said:

IGA:  Just admit you can't defend your opposition to gun control.

Scout i just did. 

Admit you know nothing about guns, yet you want to ban them.

yes or no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...