General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA guy I was talking to today at work said the the founding fathers wanted us to have guns.
I said, well I'll let you have all the muskets you want, it takes a long time to load those puppies.
no_hypocrisy
(46,159 posts)If every colonist had a musket or two, the Revolutionary War could have been protracted with more fatalities.
Not everyone was for Independence and there were plenty of "Loyalists" (to the King). Would arming literally everyone have been a good idea? Not then, and not now.
I'm getting a sinking feeling that the NRA has an agenda to arm as many RW nuts as possible and then let them loose to topple democracy with their militias.
iscooterliberally
(2,863 posts)The NRA pedals fear to sell more guns. When something bad happens, they say we need more guns. I heard on NPR the other day that there are currently more retail outlets in the US where you can buy a gun than there are Starbucks locations on the entire planet.
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)They thought guns might help.
sl8
(13,860 posts)The founding fathers weren't all crazy, cockeyed optimists, given to think that happiness was guaranteed. They might not have even thought of it as achievable.
So as to end on an upbeat note, and for your listening pleasure, one cockeyed optimist:
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,879 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,191 posts)Clearly that view has long since evolved, and unless your co-worker wants to advocate for the abolition of the U.S. Military, the original intent of the 2nd Amendment has long since outlived its practicality.
sl8
(13,860 posts)
Madison [Federalist 46]
...
It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
...
Hamilton [Federalist 29]
...
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 own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
...
You think that their well-founded, well-spoken suspicions of a federal, standing army can be reduced to budgetary concerns? I don't think that you give them enough credit.
You make a good point about the evolution of their views, though.
Jim__
(14,083 posts)... 18 and 45 into a local militia company.
The Second Militia Act of 1792 as described in wikipedia:
Militia members, referred to as "every citizen, so enrolled and notified", "...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[5] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen.
The militias were divided into "divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies" as the state legislatures would direct.[6] The provisions of the first Act governing the calling up of the militia by the president in case of invasion or obstruction to law enforcement were continued in the second act.[7] Court martial proceedings were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed orders.[8]
pintobean
(18,101 posts)redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)maxsolomon
(33,379 posts)times have changed. now the 2nd is a sociopathy.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)Number two, even if true, who cares? The founding fathers were not infallible beacons of perfection and all powerful knowledge, and it's time we stop treating them as such.