Michael Rivero of whatreallyhappened.com quotes the founders of the United States so well and in such a way as to make clear the intent of the Second Amendment and why it should be held sacred that I deemed the quotes he made worthy of repeating on these forums to inform the reader.

Here is what he quoted:

"If 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 rights and those of their fellow citizens." -- The Federalist, No. 29 -- Alexander Hamilton

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." -- Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775 - Thomas Paine

"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789 -- Elbridge Gerry

"The great object is, that every man be armed." -- Patrick Henry

"That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State..." -- George Mason

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" -- Patrick Henry

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!" -- Patrick Henry

"No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state.... Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen." -- State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788

"While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny." -- Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that axists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." -- Noah Webster An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions." -- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
"... whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." -- Richard H. Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer 53, 1788

"... the loyalists in the beginning of the late war, who objected to associating, arming and fighting, in defense of our liberties, because these measures were not constitutional. A free people should always be left... with every possible power to promote their own happiness." -- Pennsylvania Gazette, April 23, 1788

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Thomas Jefferson Papers p. 334, 1950)

Does this 200+ year old information pertain to the current policies of the current US government and the ramifications of legislation they have recently passed, are trying to pass now, and my want to pass in the future?

What do you think?

Out of respect to the families of the latest round of victims, I have been doing more reading and researching than posting...So far, nothing posted, printed, or televised has changed my feelings about gun control, neither did Sandy Hook...I did, finally, come across an article that I feel tells it like it is...The reality of more and more gun control legislation, the reality of firearm killings, the reality of what really needs to be done if we are to better control current firearm related wounding and killings here in the United States...

I should print the whole article, it's not that long and IMO, a must read for concerned citizens on both sides of the issue...

FROM THE ARTICLE:

The U.S. has been confronted with a lot of horrific gun violence in recent years: the 32 killed at Virginia Tech in 2007; the 13 killed at Texas’ Fort Hood in 2009; the attack last year on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords that left six people dead, including a federal judge; the 12 people killed in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater this year. But as mass shootings have become more frequent and more deadly, popular opinion has been moving steadily in favor of greater gun rights. In 1993, a Pew Research Center poll found that support for gun control overpowered support for gun rights by 57% to 34%. By this year, the margin had fallen to 47% to 46%. This support for guns is not just abstract: the FBI has logged a record 16.8 million background checks for gun purchases this year.

It’s tempting to engage in anti-gun polemics and hope that popular opinion will dramatically shift, but it is also likely a mistake. The smarter course for those who want stronger federal gun-control laws anytime soon is legislative stewardship and compromise. The best way to get the job done is to craft a law that appeals to the broad middle of the nation, pull in as many pro-gun moderates as possible, and marginalize the NRA and other anti-gun-control extremists.

http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/17/viewpoint-if-we-want-gun-control-well-need-to-compromise/

That is a view that might be acceptable in a democracy (that is already the tyranny of the majority) where individuals have no rights, but it is not a view that is lawful under natural law, which acknowledges the rights of the individual. The only lawful society is a republic and such views are not in the least acceptable in any civilized republic.

There are two kinds of extremists...those who are, and those who claim others are. The latter is by far the more dangerous of the two; at least the former is honest.

But you're admitting both are dangerous and your "statement" about "those who claim others are" being more dangerous is just your opinion, right?

And where do you shake out...Since you brought it up, I'm curious...

Extremism is no crime. What might be a crime is the marginalization of an extremist's views. As someone (I forget who) once said: "Extremism in the pursuit of patriotism is no vice." To that I might add that to deny the extremist his rights is not only a vice, it is the bona fide crime of the tyrant.

To deny ANYONE ANY of their natural rights is to deny ALL of them to EVERYONE, for it is only by the respect for the rights of others that we have any rights at all and in not respecting someone else's right you abrogate that right for yourself.

I didn't say that extremism was dangerous. I said that those who claim others are is FAR MORE DANGEROUS than an extremist. The only danger a "true" extremist presents is the denial to others of any of their rights, and that is flat out criminal, not simply extreme.

I don't know what you mean by "shake out", but I presume from context you want to know where I stand. I stand on what I just stated above…In fact I stand for justice and fair treatment for everyone.

Great answer for someone, but it doesn't answer my question...I'm 100% sure my 7th grade English teacher would disagree with you too.....You wrote...

"There are two kinds of extremists...those who are, and those who claim others are. The latter is by far the more dangerous of the two; at least the former is honest"

So yes, you are saying both are dangerous, one is just more dangerous than the other....So just how dangerous is an extremist?...Would people be safe around an extremist with a gun in his or her hand?

"Where do you shake out" is an American expression for where do you stand on the subject......

Why?…Were there too many syntactical or grammatical errors?…Tell her I apologize, but I never took grade seven english.



Incorrect. I said a TRUE extremist is a criminal. Examples of true extremists abound. Ted Kaczynski, Charles Manson, Jeff Dahmer, etc. I most definitely would NOT want to entrust such people with firearms of any sort. The non-criminal extremist is perfectly harmless and has a right to express his views in any society that deems itself a free one.



Ah. (That explains it. I'm not in the USA. I live on Turtle Island, Earth.) I think by now my stance should be abundently clear to all, but in the event it isn't, I'm a theorist in moral philosophy and natural law who stands for and defends everyone's human rights.

So the non-criminal extremist, having extremist tendencies, would not be more likely to cross the line from a non-criminal act to criminal acts in defense of his or her extremist views on, say, anything?

Are you extremist in your theorist views in moral philosophy and natural law in terms of how they relate to everyone's human rights or just yours?

By definition, the non-criminal extremist commits no crime. The extremist who advocates criminal activity bears watching, but beyond that what can you lawfully do? Arrest him for thought crimes?…That is tyranny, pure & simple. Read or watch "Nineteen Eighty-Four" to see where that kinda thinking leads.



My human rights are the same as everyone else's.

How can anyone who believes in freedom and human rights be an extremist, unless he lives in an unfree society that doesn't respect human rights or the rule of law in the first place? Stalin, Hitler, and Mao might have considered me an extremist, or even a terrorist, but does what somebody calls you turn you into the thing you are called? I sincerely hope not.

So the non-criminal extremist, having extremist tendencies, would not be more likely to cross the line from a non-criminal act to criminal acts in defense of his or her extremist views on, say, anything?

Are you extremist in your theorist views in moral philosophy and natural law in terms of how they relate to everyone's human rights or just yours?


By definition, the non-criminal extremist commits no crime. The extremist who advocates criminal activity bears watching, but beyond that what can you lawfully do? Arrest him for thought crimes?…That is tyranny, pure & simple. Read or watch "Nineteen Eighty-Four" to see what that kinda thinking leads.



How can anyone who believes in freedom and human rights be an extremist, unless he lives in an unfree society that doesn't respect human rights or the rule of law in the first place? Stalin, Hitler, and Mao might have considered me an extremist, or even a terrorist, but does what somebody calls you turn you into the thing you are called? I sincerely hope not.


Are you playing dumb, or am I a chitty communicator?

extremist [ɪkˈstriːmɪst]
n
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a person who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in being politically radical
adj
(Psychology) of, relating to, or characterized by immoderate or excessive actions, opinions, etc.
extremism n

Civilans should keep guns, one jackass should not ruin it for the rest of us, besides too much for manuplation for people whjo would otherwise like to ban guns. It's amazing to see that the people most paassionate about taking away guns are criminals. WHere is humanity's common sense?

What can I say?

In a land of the blind the man with vision has extreme views.

Go read Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" and tell me whether or not you think the guy who walked out of the cave was an extremist.

Now that's funny!!

"There are none so blind as those who will not see"...

NOW ya got it!

Don't count your chicks before they hatch, here's the rest of it...

"The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know."

That is perfectly correct and a perfect example of that is the law itself.

All reasonable people know the difference between right and wrong behaviour and what's fair and what isn't...That's why ignorance of the law is no excuse.

NOBODY is above the law, yet many in power place themselves there to the detriment of the people they are supposed to serve as public servants. Personally, I think that's just wrong. What do you think?

Of course it's wrong, but IMHO, so is an extremist....Which, if memory serves me, is what we were/are talking about....For some reason, I'm getting the feeling you did not read the article I posted...

I read it...What makes the NRA extremist, and why is there nothing said about the ramifications to the constitution, specifically, to the Second Amendment? Do you consider the founding fathers of your country extremists? What is your opinion of their views? Do you consider the supreme law of your country to be no more than "old"? Have you read my original post?...What did you think of it?

We had this conversation already, YOU are misinterpreting both clauses with respect to how they relate to each other and you also confuse the meaning of the word militia as it translates in the 2nd amendment...I find the way you are hammering on about 'US" gun control issues rather extreme...

Yes, I read it...What did I think of it?...I thought it was a bit dated...

first of all, that is the worse argument i've heard, simply because it is not even close to the truth.

i don't think this is a 2nd amendment question at all. the question to me is, should the average citizen be able to purchase and possess military grade weapons and ammo?

clearly ak's and bushmaster's are not used for hunting, (which seems to be the common cry whenever any kind of gun control is talked about.) so why do we need them circulating throughout our society?

if you are truly to defend yourself and/or your home, a handgun, i should think, would suffice....and if this is really about having your rights taken away, where were you people when we had the patriot act shoved up our a$$es?