Gun Control & 2nd Amendment

He never said it. If you can show me the exact source of this quote I will retract this. But I know you can't. It is not an actual Jefferson quote.Your next Jefferson quote Is actually quite taken out of context.

quote:

---

yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes;

---

Thomas Jefferson, Preamble to a Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge
Fall 1778 Papers 2:526--27You see how I did that? I actually used the original source to show it is accurate.
This has nothing to do with protecting oneself. It has nothing to do with arming oneself. It has to do with universal education.
I am going to tell you what I tell a lot of people here. Be a critical thinker. Research things. Confirm your source.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

So you are calling for a rebellion?It is funny how people love to quote things that support them, but don't want to hear anything that goes against their beliefs.Do you think John Adams and George Washington would support this view? Quotes from the 1700's have very little bearing on the society we have today. People like Jefferson had no concept or experience of what became or is now the United States of America. The letter you quote was written before the establishment of the United States of America. It was a period when the States were aligned as a confederation under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Few people were happy with the Articles and there was extreme frustration from many of the founding fathers. At his time Jefferson was one of the most radicalized founding fathers. His views changed drastically in later years.This letter is a prime example of rhetoric. Did he actually believe this at the time? Who knows. But his later actions do not show he truly believed this. Do you know what he was doing 20 years later? He was President of the country which you seem to think he wanted to overthrow. But has nothing to do with guns or arms. It has to do with educating the people.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

OK, so your contention was that John Adams and George Washington would agree that a revolution every 20 years or so would be a good thing.I doubt any historian that has studied them would agree. Do you have any quotes, or documents to back this assertion?Washington was a reluctant revolutionary. He was motivated by economic factors. Nothing as heady and abstract as liberty democracy. He was a member of the American aristocracy. Yes he was a jumped up member but it was something he sought to attain his whole life. The idea of the armed rabble was but a necessary evil to him.Adams also would be very against it. He was also a reluctant revolutionary that went with revolution when he saw that Great Britain would not concede on anything.This is how he felt about arms.

quote:

---

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.

---

John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)This is misquoted often to make it sound completely different, but this is the actual quote.

quote:

---

"Adams was thus mindful of the uses of arms (i.e., legitimate self-defense and militia duty) and concerned about misuse for mob action or anarchy."

---

David Hardy, The Second Amendment and the Historiography of the Bill of Rights, 1987Now how about you try a legitimate quote and actual backing to your assertions.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

You stated(if you want me to go back to the original message I will) that Adams and Washington would have supported Jeffersons statement about a revolution every 20 years.You are now backpedaling and misrepresenting my response. I did not say anything about them being against the tight to bear arms. I was showing that your assertion was a load of crock.I presented an argument showing why it was crock. Now you claim you didn't mean what you said? Maybe you should think before you hit that submit button.Or are you saying Adams and Washington thought the US should have a revolution in some indeterminate time in the future/I'd love to see your sources on this. Maybe you should just admit it is something you pulled out of your ass? Classic Hyro. When caught throwing bs around you change the argument. Deflect and attack the person you are debating with. Poor form, poor form.All I was doing was showing that it was a statement with no evidence to back it. You care to back your statements about Adams and Washington or not?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This is not at all what you original comment suggested.Of course we all knew they were in support ofyou the revolutionary war. You clearly stated that they believed that another revolution would be necessary in the future of the United States. I have repeatedly asked you to provide evidence that they believed future revolutions would be necessary.As of yet you have not supported this assertion. All you have done is defelect the argument and try to say you said something else.First quote
"God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson Message 38
Your response
Message 41
So what historically shows that they thought we needed regular revolutions?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Well it would be silly of me to question whether Washington and Adams supported their own revolution. Don't you think? Do you have any idea what these two thought about the French revolution? You might want to do some research on it.
[ABE]They also were not what one would call firebrand revolutionaries. Until the fateful day in Lexington and Concord both hoped for an accommodation with the crown. Even after the hostilities commenced there was a hope to come to a peace and still remain in the empire. The idea of a free and independent country was something that slowly came forward. It was almost a 1 1/2 years between start of hostilities and The Declaration of Independence(which is not a United States of America document and has no legal standing)[/ABE]Well this conversation went the way I expected. Instead of clarifying what you said or meant you instead waste a number of posts trying to backtrack. Why didn't you just explain what you intended. Instead you refuse to acknowledge what you said was bs.Then you turn things around and swear at me and accuse me of manipulating the conversation. All I have been doing is trying to clarify what you meant.It could have been as simple as this.Hyro says.
"No, I do not believe that John Adams and George Washington thought that the United States of America should go through regular revolutions."Also, you never even acknowledged my point that the Jefferson quote came before the founding of the United States of America. Therefore, don't you think that maybe Jefferson might have tempered his views(as history showed he did) a little after the adoption of the Constitution .Finally, you have not clearly explained what the quote has to do with modern day gun rights. All you have done is made some vague comments about needing to protect yourself from the government.In this country we have a ballot box. That is something that did not exist for the common man at that time. Don't you think political action and voting would be more effective than an armed rabble?I see you have no desire to actually debate this issue. You just want to proselytize. Then when people question your unfounded assertions or ask for a clarification you respond with vitriol and accusations.I have tried debating you in the past. I see you have the same modus operandi as you did before. I probably will not debate you directly in the future, but when you spout some asinine argument, misquote or misrepresent a quote, I will respond and questione you.Have a good dayEdited by Theodoric, : More points

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

On the frontier. But once the native population was pushed out the areas of USA without them actually had no more need for guns for home security than Europe did.So I think more credence is given to this idea than it is due.
I think part of the gun culture is an adoration and
misrepresentation of the frontier, primarily the age of the cowboy. Remember handguns did not become practical until after the civil war. The USA of the 1800's and 1900's was not as lawless as the rabid pro-gun crowd would like us to believe.The idea of the cowboy/vigilante, protect my castle, is an American adaption(perversion) of English common law. The castle doctrine which the pro-gun crowd has perverted to justification to kill anyone that enters their house is not thought of that way in England where it originally came from.The closest interpretation in US law to the original English common law is the 4th amendment. The thing that has always disturbed me about the pro-gun crowd is there insistence that the right to bear arms also give them the right to shoot and kill people. I see nothing in the 2nd amendment that says anything about using deadly force to protect ones possessions.Before I am attacked for being anti-gun, I want to repeat. I am a gun owner. As a matter of fact I used my .22 rifle today to shoot a couple squirrels. So please lay off the personal attacks and don't claim I want guns banned.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Pic not suitable for this forum.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Read the constitution.

quote:

---

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

---

Again, classic Hyro. Misrepresent, attack, obfuscate.
Because I do not agree with you, I am anti-gun. Classic. I have never made any argument for the banning of guns. All I have ever argued for is the stronger regulation of guns. Regulation is not infringement.So the people that support gun control regulations are the same as homophobes. We might have to have a corollary to Godwin's Law. Call it the Hyro corollary. Have you brought up Nazi's or Hitler yet in this thread? You always do so I think now is about the right time.Don't you think it is a perversion of justice, that if the police catch someone breaking into your house the following happens. They arrest them, they go on trial and if convicted the spend time in prison. But if you catch them breaking in, you want to be judge, jury and executioner. All for what? A thousand dollar stereo, a thousand dollar tv. This isn't exercising your rights. It is vigilantism, mob rule. I didn't know we had a practicing psychologist here. Don't you dare tell me what my motivations are or what I am thinking or "projecting". I know much more about guns they you think I do. So since you don't even know me, how about you just quit with trying to tell me my motivations.AND PLEASE.Could you stop with the personal attacks. It is rude and makes you look petty. But if that is all you have got I guess you got to go with it.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Well if you look at all the gun control threads, you can see he is batting .1000.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

do you realize penn and teller are comedians? If it means just killin people , than yes its. Yes I do Have you ever had to shoot a human being? or do you just fantasize about about it? Fabricated? Why don't you show the fabrication. You are real good pretending things but not good at showing reality. Show me how things are fabricated. How classic. Menstruating teenager. Are you 14 years old? Wow good to see you cant really discuss the issue. I was willing t show you my real world experience with guns and you come up with menstruation? Do you have any real world relationship with real women?

Longest? How many meters?
What target?
You willing to kill?
For what?
Have you killed?
Or are you a tough talking pussy?Sorry if I am offensive here. but certain people make me very mad.

Isn't funny that you accuse people of the same thing you do. Is this determined by the number of quote you can find? Please let us know how YOU know that this was a minority view?You seem to have a schizophrenic view of things.

quote:

---

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." -- John Adams"

---

Makes it very clear that. John Adams thought, though the people have a right to arms they can be and should be regulated.I think you are misreading Sam Adams completely.Notice this line.

quote:

---

or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances;

---

Kind of undermines your whole idea of getting your friends together and overthrowing the government doesn't it.

quote:

---

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;... that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press." -- Thomas Jefferson; Letter to Major John Cartwright (June 5 1824)

---

So there are to be NO limits on freedom of speech and press either?

quote:

---

"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 the people always posses arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." -

---

Possess arms and be taught how to use them. I am all for that, but wouldn't you call that "gun control"? You willing to go to the point of legislating that everyone own arms? Or do you just want to take the things in these quotes that support you and ignore the rest/I find it hilarious that you quote Tenche Cox and Melancton Smith. Had you heard of them before you did Wiki search?More from Smith

quote:

---

"Congress will ever exercise their powers
to levy as much money as the people can pay.
They will not be restrained from direct taxes
by the consideration that necessity does not require them."

---

Tax the hell out of people. That is congresses prerogative.Melancton Smith was also very against the way members of the house of representatives were apportioned.
Page not found - Thirty-Thousand.org
Therefore you need to fight for a different way of apportioning members of the house, since what he had to say is so important to you. Smith was very against the equal representation of people and states.
He was an anti-federalist. In other words he was against the ratification of the constitution. Isn't it strange that you quote a person that was against the very document you claim to defend. Also don't be deceived be the title. He was no farmer. He was a prominent merchant in New York. The letter were simply propaganda.
Also from Tenche Cox.

quote:

---

"Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

---

Is the second amendment about guns or swords?
Can you give us any other reason we should respect what he or Mr. Smith have to say? Were they prominent leaders or just people that said something you agree with?It is good to see you can do a wiki search, now tell us why what these guys said should matter to us.I can play the quote game all day. Now make a good argument.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Wow we need to have another corollary I think. Since I don't want to kill people that rob me I am complicit with murderers and rapists? Wow how does your brain actually work? Umm no. It ain't. The first time you have asked. Wow sexist and insulting at the same time. This definitely worth pointing out to admins. In your mind.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Read what DA said. I agree.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts