Here are several quotes on how the founding fathers felt on the second amendment and guns in general. You keep hearing liberals go on and on about how "they never meant it that way" any time you argue the second amendment, when actuality, they meant it exactly how they wrote it.

A few choice quotes:

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them." - Zachariah Johnson

"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 peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …" - Samuel Adams

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." -Thomas Paine

They are all correct but whats that got to do with gun control? Nobody wants to ban all the guns.

You keep hearing "Thats not what they meant" because you keep insisting on using their quotes but fail to understand what the quotes are actually addressing. None are regarding the issue of regulations; they are all about total confiscation. If you find a point that isnt totally irrelevant to the debate, you might actually get somewhere.

This isnt rocket science, you know...

They are all correct but whats that got to do with gun control? Nobody wants to ban all the guns.

Not so, actually. There are plenty of people in power who want exactly that, because guns are a hindrance for their plans for a socialist America. For instance, this fucker:

"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." -Sara Brady

Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum

The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

They mean to see us disarmed. Slowly making our weapons useless by either buying up ammunition or putting down petty laws that limit things like magazine capacity is just the first steps.

None are regarding the issue of regulations

Again, plainly not true. They took that into account when they wrote the thing. They said they did not want laws to be used to circumvent the constitution on this matter. Aside from that, are we not to be trusted with firearms? If not us, the citizens, then who should be trusted?

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our 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

"The ruling class doesn't care about public safety. Having made it very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake." -Malcolm Wallop

Why can we not be trusted with arms? Oh, right...

"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. " -Noah Webster

"An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject." - Anonymous

I suppose these quotes didn't apply to women or black people, huh?

I suppose the best argument you can give against the second amendment is "well, they didn't allow negroes and women to vote back in the day so what they said doesn't mean anything now," huh?

It depends on what we're talking about specifically. What do you think the founding fathers would have thought about allowing black slaves to have guns?

Repatriation is what they thought of the idea of dealing with slaves, period. Most agreed the best way to deal with them once we were through with them, once we'd replaced them with newer farm equipment, was to send them back where they came from. There was even talk of a Bureau of Repatriation, after the end of the War of Northern Aggression War of Southern Liberty American Civil War. Lincoln himself, when asked, agreed it was the best solution. Then caught a bullet to the head for it.

In their fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed blacks having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites.

The Emancipation Proclamation was not some great effort at social reform. It was a purely military maneuver: resource denial and giving the North the supposed moral and legal high ground. Any tactician will tell you, if your enemy primarily relies on one source of income, cut him off from it. In the case of the South, it was primarily cotton. Make it illegal for them to use slaves to work the cotton, 'free' the slaves in the South while not applying the same to the North, and suddenly Northern voters love him. Oh, that's right, you probably didn't know but that little bit of paper only applied to Southern slaves, because Northern slave owners argued that they needed their slaves to maintain production.

But then, this isn't an argument about slavery or women's suffrage. It's an argument about the right to keep and bear arms. You're attempting to conflate the two, when in reality there is no connection.

I'm not attempting to conflate the two, I'm saying that a literal view is flawed because blacks and women weren't even seen as fully human at the time.

If that viewpoint can change, why is the 2nd amendment somehow infallibly literal and not subject to historical review?

I'm not attempting to conflate the two, I'm saying that a literal view is flawed because blacks and women weren't even seen as fully human at the time.

ASSERTION (circa 1800s): A nation's citizens needs weapons to defend themselves.

ASSERTION (circa 1800s): negroes and women do not hold equal status to land owning citizens.

These two things are unrelated and trying to compare them is, in point of fact, an act of conflation. The second has no impact on the first, nor does the first impact the second. One does not make the other invalid for the same person or people said it. Hitler, Goebbels, Stalin, Lenin, and many other dictators, generals, and otherwise historically "bad" people have said many intelligent and insightful things that are not invalidated, or rather tainted, by their actions--despite what some groups would wish. (White) Guilt or shame by association is not going to work here.

If that viewpoint can change, why is the 2nd amendment somehow infallibly literal and not subject to historical review?

What you have to understand is that the viewpoint didn't change, the people in power did. Those people held different viewpoints and so went through with their agenda.

Why are they unrelated? A person's ability to own a firearm was directly related to whether they were a white male.

Why are they unrelated?

No, no, that's not how this works. You've made a statement, it is your duty provide evidence to support your statement, not mine to defend against it until after you've provided said evidence or facts. You've still failed to provide a convincing argument for how they are related.

A person's ability to own a firearm was directly related to whether they were a white male.

What's your point? How, exactly, does this affect us owning guns now? Are you suggesting that, because negroes were once slaves, only they should be allowed firearms as some sort of repayment or penance on the part of white people? Blacks owned slaves as well, you know. And they would never have been brought here if their friends, neighbors, and relatives hadn't sold them. If you're so concerned over slavery, please, by all means, offer to pay for air fare back to Africa so they can go home, where they will truly belong, as opposed to here where they "suffer still under the oppression of the white man."

Or is it more that you're grasping at straws and trying to imply that because people thought differently on slavery at one point, somehow they should think differently on guns, when every reason the Founding Fathers gave for having the Second Amendment and not infringing upon it is still true to this day. Our government is still in desperate need of a reminder that its citizens will not take its bullshit lying down, for we are armed. If you take that away, if you limit or infringe upon that, you are spitting on the face of everything they stood for, everything they believed, and the entire purpose for making the Constitution in the first place.

At that point, you may as well just go ahead and take it out of its case, then proceed to wipe your ass with it, because that is how little value you are giving it.

Times have changed, we don't need weapons any more.

Said every man who hammered his swords or guns into plowshares, only to be forced into the service of those who had not.

Phew, maybe you and the Constitution need to get a room, man.

Argument failing? Make light of the situation and/or insult the other party at the same time. Imply improbable sexual relations for bonus points. For instance:

I was only joking.

or

Maybe the two of you should get a room.

My argument's fine, why treat it as a document that cannot change with the times? We already don't. I don't even need to grandstand.

why treat it as a document that cannot change with the times?

Why treat the times as if they have changed for the better, when in fact, they've gotten worse? More than ever we need our arms to defend ourselves from the government--more, to tear it down when it eventually crosses the line.

I would like to personally thank your AR-15 for keeping the NSA from spying on me, and for preventing wars for profit.

Thank you, glorious phallic compensation.

Joke's on you, hoss. I don't own an AR. I can just tell the difference between a military weapon and a civilian one, and don't need to make asinine arguments that any form of "automatic" weapon is bad, because all automatics are the same. Semi-automatic is not fully-automatic. They are two different things. We already have laws protecting you from fully-automatic weapons. Get over it.

Semi-automatic is not fully-automatic. They are two different things. We already have laws protecting you from fully-automatic weapons. Get over it.

I'm going to assume you meant to say this to someone else, because I didn't mention anything about any of this.

"Except for black people" -everyone, late 1700s

Why are you so determined to make his about race when it's about the second amendment? The fact that women & blacks where not regarded as "human" has no bearing on the second amendment what so ever.

Tactical nukes for everyone!

The constitutional standard is what is in standard issue. Nukes are not in standard issue.

[deleted]

I fail to see your point.

they are probably safer in the hands of LAW Abiding citizens than in the hands of the criminals that run "our" government

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TGCFmSFvIZw

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.

Now, leftists go on and on about that well regulated militia line. But let's try another sentence, with the exact same structure:

Rain, being wet, the right of the people to hold umbrellas, shall not be infringed.

Does rain being wet have anything to do with limiting the right in that second sentence? Or is it simply an explanation of WHY the right shall not be infringed?

Of course leftists can't understand that language changes over time either. The second amendment, written today in modern English, would read:

Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Of course, any "logic" or "parsing" that gun grabbers try to throw is smokescreen bullshit. Their real argument is that the second amendment doesn't permit gun ownership because waaaah I want it that way daddy!

I'm not taking a stance on your argument, but I feel it's necessary to point out that "another sentence, with the exact same structure" would be, "Rain, being wet, the right of the people to hold umbrellas, shall not be infringed." The comma after rain is necessary to preserve identical structures.

or

The comma after rain, being necessary to preserve identical structures in the comparative statements, the right of me to point that out, shall not be infringed. ;)

I have added the extra comma so as to make the comparison more exact.

Again not taking a stance, but it's interesting to point out that, if you had included the comma in your original comment, mine wouldn't have been necessary. My comment was entirely dependent on your original error in syntax. Commas mean a lot. Words mean a lot--more than any reductive explanation can describe, when they're arranged into a phrase or a clause.
Edit: Also, I'll go ahead and take a stance here. Rain is completely the reason for the umbrella. That's not ambiguous at all. If rain didn't exist, the people needn't have the right to carry umbrellas.

You're being brainwashed. The more mass shootings there are, the more you cling to your precious guns for the misguided sense of security they give you. No mass shooting has ever been thwarted by some good samaritan with a gun. It's a myth and you're being controlled by fear. You want to take the position that gun control only infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens, but you fail to realize that the massive amount of guns we have in this country mean that thousands and thousands of innocent people are killed ever year. What about their right to life? Every other 1st World nation realizes this very basic fact and has imposed extremely strict gun laws. Can you guess the result? Why don't you google how many gun deaths there are in the UK every year, compared to how many we have. This sub is supposed to be people that resist mind-control and you're falling right into their trap - landing with a thud on the side of fear rather than reasoned thought.

A gentle reminder that you are in a conspiracy sub.....and I will speak for myself.....I don't believe we are just having random mass shootings they are false flag attempts to take our guns away.....the most recent mass shootings.....yes we have the right to life.....every single person does.....but you need to find the middle ground....you will NOT take away our last line of defense against tyranny no matter the cost.....the Constitution is the law of the land in the US.....of people don't like it then maybe it's time to find a new place to call your home....including any politician....quick side note just in case did you happen to hear about any of the other mass shootings that have happened recently such as Georgia or Louisiana? Or just the ones that fits the government's narrative?

Also, this idea that our little pistols are a legitimate "last line of defense against tyranny" is a total farce. Our government spends billions and billions of dollars a year on defense - that's aircraft carriers, fighter jets, tanks, submarines, infantry...not to mention a giant arsenal of nuclear weapons. Again, another false sense of security - our government can do whatever they want to any major super-power in the world. Do you really think your six-shooter guarantees you any real protection from THEM? The people's only real power against the government is our numbers - we have to unite in order to control the people who control us. Instead, you're falling into the exact debate they want you to fall into to keep the focus off of the real issues. Democrats/gun control vs. conservatives/2nd amendment rights. We need to wake up and stop fighting their battles.

A populance that wages guerilla warfare on it's government is not going to be beaten with aircraft carriers, fighters jets, tanks and submarines, especially not when there's a risk that it's the soldiers family in the ironsights.

The majority of the populace is obese and taking copious amounts of medication just to function. They have no survival skills and couldn't possibly put up any sort of organized fight. Most would surrender if you took away the internet. 99.99% would surrender if they lost water and electricity so they could simply survive with their families. Im sure a few thousand survivalists would hold out for a couple weeks bit it's laughable if you believe the US military could'nt lock down this country in matter of days.

I'm not qestioning the US Militarys ability to occupy it's own territory, I am questioning wether the US Government can exercise enough control in such a situation to quell any resistance and effectively dominate it's populance. I'd say the last 100 years of history has taught us "No", even the last 15 years of history tells us that no, they probably can not.

I agree that the military couldn't control every square mile of territory in the US, and IMO they wouldn't have to. I am just making the argument that the US population could not form any sort of effective guerrilla resistance.

They wouldn't have to put up an effective resistance, just resist. I mean the workers of the governments comes from the people so any government that is at "war" with it's populance would experience a dwindling resource of willing workers, sure the control would work to begin with but for how long? 10 years? 20 years? Sooner or later the populance would overcome the government beause how are the government going to hire people when all there is to hire is infiltrators and dissidents. IMO the control system would crumble within a generation.

I guess that's the point I'm trying to make. We all assume that these false flags are intended to take our guns away, but I would argue exactly the opposite is true. I think these events are engineered to make us all cling to our guns - there was an article I came across today that said that gun manufacturer sales steeply rise in the wake of these types of events, and you can understand why. The narrative in the MSM that's being perpetuated is that there's a bunch of "bad guys" out there with guns, and the only thing that can stop them is good guys with guns. Why do you think Congress hasn't passed any significant gun reform since Sandy Hook? No one's even proposed anything. I think what's actually going on here is much more sinister and underhanded than the majority of people on this sub can see - you're playing right into their hands by shouting for more guns and less reform...that's exactly what they want because it allows them to continue to control us with fear.

I think most people continue to think they way they do because they don't have someone, such as yourself, to make some logical points or think about these things from a different perspective.....I for one am not one of those people....what you said is making me think more about the situations that are happening and maybe I need to think outside the box more before jumping to conclusions.....in all sincerity thank you......more people need to be like you and not flip out and resort to name calling or bashing and have a true conversation with open minds....

I think a lot of this data can be misinterpreted - I personally refuse to believe that we as Americans have more of a predilection to killing each other than people in other countries. I think the laws we have on the books leads to a culture of violence that other countries just don't have. I think that starts with the massive amount of guns we have and the ease with which they are acquired, but things like the "War on Drugs" and our privatized incarceration system have also contributed to many senseless deaths. The fact is, we have real evidence all over the world to show that the more guns that a society has, the more innocent people are killed by guns. Australia is the most recent and relevant example. They had an epidemic of mass shootings and then their government decided it had to stop. Much to the horror and dismay of the gone-owning populous, they outlawed the majority of guns and quite literally "took the people's guns away." The result? No more mass shootings - please google it, there's tons of articles and videos showing the amazing results they had in that country.

If the Constitution was followed to the letter and never changed we'd still have slavery and only male land owners would be allowed to vote. It's a 200+ year old document that can and must be updated to reflect the changing times.

I'm not qestioning the US Militarys ability to occupy it's own territory, I am questioning wether the US Government can exercise enough control in such a situation to quell any resistance and effectively dominate it's populance. I'd say the last 100 years of history has taught us "No", even the last 15 years of history tells us that no, they probably can not.

Argument failing? Make light of the situation and/or insult the other party at the same time. Imply improbable sexual relations for bonus points. For instance:

I was only joking.

or

Maybe the two of you should get a room.