A question for fellow Americans.

[Armistead]

Ben Franklin would probably be running a porn ring.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

I'd say politians for the last ~60 have been trying to take the leash off and once it's off, there's no putting it back on.

I'd say you're off by about 167 years. Politicians have been trying to subvert the Constitution from day one, including the ones who helped write it.

In my opinion many of the founders would indeed object to the treatment their ideal has recieved, but they also objected to that very treatment back in their day. Why do you think Madison and Jefferson ended up despising Hamilton, and vice versa? One of the great things about George Washington was his true love for his country an desire to do anything to make it work. Sadly, of all of them he seems to have been the only one.

I too dislike what is being done today. I'm just pointing out that it's nothing new. I think most of the Founders would recognize exactly what is happening, and would find it uncomfortably familiar.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I think most of the Founders would recognize exactly what is happening, and would find it uncomfortably familiar.

But 100x over in today's world.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Ben Franklin would probably be running a porn ring.

zing!

[Kaptlt.Endrass]

They may not be too happy with the fact that the second amendment is being contested. And the first. Possibly the fourth and fifth.

They would also not be happy about the downsizing of the military (I'm not)

I do think they would be glad, however, about the equality that the African-Americans and other groups have received.

[Platapus]

They would probably say "Why the hell are you still using a 200+ year old Constitution?? We wrote that thing a long time ago for a country much different. We even put clauses where things could be changed as necessary. As things change, so must the constitution, dumbasses!"

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Kaptlt.Endrass

They would also not be happy about the downsizing of the military (I'm not)

Actually they believed that a national military was a dangerous thing.

"In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."
-James Madison, "Father of The Constitution", in a speech at the Constitutional Debates, June 29, 1787

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army."
-Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789

"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war."
-Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776

I believe that U.S. history has proved them wrong, and as long as all Americans are brought up to believe that way, then the military is not a danger. I'm just pointing out that the Founders would likely be glad to see the military downsized to nothing.

[Sinkmore]

Thank you, Sailor Steve, for not only appreciating the Constitution and the Founders, but for bothering to try to understand them, rather than uncritically (but patriotically!) revering the popular fictions.

[Sinkmore]

Originally Posted by Kaptlt.Endrass

They may not be too happy with the fact that the second amendment is being contested. And the first. Possibly the fourth and fifth.

They would also not be happy about the downsizing of the military (I'm not)

Have you read the 2nd Amendment? What do you suppose they meant by "well regulated militia?" And in context, who do you think they meant by "the people"?

Well regulated militia means individual State's "regular" armies, which were essentially militias. There was no national military - the entire Pentagon, Army, Navy, etc., are all unconstitutional. There's no such thing as a "well regulated scattering of discordant, unaffiliated, armed individuals". Carrying a gun into Chipotle is probably not what they had in mind by "the security of a free state". The amendment also never mentions hunting, hobby shooting, or self defense. It seems that those rights are not guaranteed or even contemplated anywhere in the Constitution.

It's plain as day to me that the 2nd amendment in no way authorizes -citizens- to have or carry or bear firearms, nor addresses the topic at all. However, lots of case law and black letter law does affirm those rights. So, thank activist judges, not the founders who had nothing to do with it.

When the Constitution refers to "the people" it seldom means "the persons" or "citizens"; it is in most cases referring to the 13 states. Really. Sounds weird in 2014, but it's true. IE, the 2nd Amendment originally prohibited the fed's from disarming state-led armies. Anyone who's ever attended a Michigan-Ohio State game should be glad that activist judges messed with original intent on that one.

I could also quibble with the popular interpretation of "to bear arms", which is not equivalent to "carry guns". Historically it meant nobles, who were feudal vassals, could wear armor (arms originally meant armor, and was the exclusive domain of the nobility, as in their "coat of arms", which no peasant then could have) as a sworn vassal in service to the crown. In constitutional context, it means what it says: to belong to and fight in the (well regulated, State led) military. One "bears arms" in defense if one's nation - you don't "bear arms" at Starbucks - that's just good old packing heat.

If you take the 2nd with its modern meaning, then where's the limit? By that (distorted) view, there seems to be nothing preventing individuals from owning nuclear weapons, or surface-to-air missiles, or from bringing them to airports, or to Navy stations. Where does the Constitution, under that view, permit the Feds to take away my nerve gas?

[Admiral Halsey]

(Should've guessed that eventually a post like that would happen. Either way let the fireworks fly!)

[les green01]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.sorry we do have a militia its call the national guard.
The National Guard of the United States, part of the reserve components of the United States Armed Forces, is a reserve military force, composed of National Guard military members or units of each state and the territories of Guam, of the Virgin Islands, and of Puerto Rico, as well as of the District of Columbia, for a total of 54 separate organizations. All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 311. The majority of National Guard soldiers and airmen hold a civilian job full-time while serving part-time as a National Guard member.[1][2] These part-time guardsmen are augmented by a full-time cadre of Active Guard & Reserve (AGR) personnel in both the Army National Guard and Air National Guard, plus Army Reserve Technicians in the Army National Guard and Air Reserve Technicians (ART) in the Air National Guard.
The National Guard is a joint activity of the United States Department of Defense (DoD) composed of reserve components of the United States Army and the United States Air Force: the Army National Guard of the United States[1] and the Air National Guard of the United States respectively.(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

i have read where the wigs and john adam had a law pass where you could be thrown in jail and poperty seize if you said something against the wigs or something they didnt like.founding fathers be shock how far the country have came as far as inventions,but how would they rate the presidents and congress after them.

[Sinkmore]

National Guard is "new" - not mentioned in Constitution, and probably prohibited by it. I'm not "against" the Guard! I'm glad we have it. But Madison and Jefferson never heard of it. I'm glad we have an Army, too. (Though I'd like Congress to take back their sole authority to declare war. And I think Eisenhower Stilwell were right about imperialism & the military industrial complex).

But, the states all did have militias in 1789, and that's what the 2nd was about, so I'm not sure what your point was.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Sinkmore

Have you read the 2nd Amendment? What do you suppose they meant by "well regulated militia?" And in context, who do you think they meant by "the people"?

Those questions have been discussed by the courts over and over again, sometimes with different answers. The biggest argument has been over the "People" issue. The usual understanding is that in the 1st Amendment "The People" refers to individuals. Gun control advocates try to insist that in the 2nd it's only a collective right. Some go so far as to claim it applies only to the Federal Government.

Well regulated militia means individual State's "regular" armies, which were essentially militias. There was no national military - the entire Pentagon, Army, Navy, etc., are all unconstitutional.

Umm...

Section 8
1: The Congress shall have Power To...provide for the common Defence

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

It looks to me like the Constitution gives the power to Congress to create an army and navy and run them as they see fit, which means it absolutely is "Constitutional".

There's no such thing as a "well regulated scattering of discordant, unaffiliated, armed individuals". Carrying a gun into Chipotle is probably not what they had in mind by "the security of a free state". The amendment also never mentions hunting, hobby shooting, or self defense. It seems that those rights are not guaranteed or even contemplated anywhere in the Constitution.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
—George Mason, Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Until a navy could be organised, Letters of Marque were granted to individual ship owners, meaning the government authorized acts of war to private citizens who provided their own cannon-armed ships.

It's plain as day to me that the 2nd amendment in no way authorizes -citizens- to have or carry or bear firearms, nor addresses the topic at all. However, lots of case law and black letter law does affirm those rights. So, thank activist judges, not the founders who had nothing to do with it.

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
—Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
—Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"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; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
—Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
—Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787

When the Constitution refers to "the people" it seldom means "the persons" or "citizens"; it is in most cases referring to the 13 states. Really. Sounds weird in 2014, but it's true. IE, the 2nd Amendment originally prohibited the fed's from disarming state-led armies.

Can you provide one single example of a statement or writing from the Framers themselves to support that claim? I think I've shown that they did indeed mean the individual citizens, and if not I can provide plenty more.

I could also quibble with the popular interpretation of "to bear arms", which is not equivalent to "carry guns". Historically it meant nobles, who were feudal vassals, could wear armor (arms originally meant armor, and was the exclusive domain of the nobility, as in their "coat of arms", which no peasant then could have) as a sworn vassal in service to the crown. In constitutional context, it means what it says: to belong to and fight in the (well regulated, State led) military.

Again, I think the quotes I've provided so far put the lie to that concept.

One "bears arms" in defense if one's nation - you don't "bear arms" at Starbucks - that's just good old packing heat.

That is certainly a valid point, and one which is the subject of much debate and certainly will garner more. Your stating it as fact, however, doesn't make it so.

If you take the 2nd with its modern meaning, then where's the limit? By that (distorted) view, there seems to be nothing preventing individuals from owning nuclear weapons, or surface-to-air missiles, or from bringing them to airports, or to Navy stations. Where does the Constitution, under that view, permit the Feds to take away my nerve gas?

That's another good question, and not the rhetorical one you pose it as. As I've pointed out earlier, at the time of the Revolution citizens owned everything the militias did, to the point of creating a makeshift navy out of privately owned ships bearing privately owned cannons. I'm not saying we should own everything entrusted to the military, but I am asking for honest debate rather than "proving" your point with rhetoric.

Addendum:

The amendment also never mentions hunting, hobby shooting, or self defense. It seems that those rights are not guaranteed or even contemplated anywhere in the Constitution.

One of James Madison's greatest fears, and the main reason he fought for so long against having a Bill of Rights, was that he believed that if he created a list of protected rights someone in the future could easily say "They didn't list that one, so they must not have meant it." Madison believed that all rights belonged to the people, and none to the government. The government only has the power to restrict rights when they infringe upon the rights of someone else. This is the reason for the 9th Amendment. ALL rights belong to the individual. I have the right to do anything I want, as long as I don't infringe on the rights of anyone else to do the same.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by les green01

i have read where the wigs and john adam had a law pass where you could be thrown in jail and poperty seize if you said something against the wigs or something they didnt like.founding fathers be shock how far the country have came as far as inventions,but how would they rate the presidents and congress after them.

You're probably thinking of the 'Alien and Sedition Acts', which were created during the potential war crisis with France in 1799. The Federalist (not Whig) Congress wrote acts granting the President the power to round up "aliens" (meaning Frenchmen) and deport them if they spoke out against the United States, and Congress the power to arrest them all if war came, plus making illegal to criticize the President or Congress publically. Vice-President Jefferson tested those acts by encouraging writers friendly to his politics to speak out, and they were indeed arrested. Once Jefferson himself was President he freed them all, and allowed the Acts to expire at their pre-ordained time.

[Admiral Halsey]

Ok after thinking this over i'm asking that IF this thread becomes too flamey I want it closed at once.