Were the Founding Fathers ...today....to write the Bill of Rights...

[Hossfly]

The constitution was born of the art of compromise. Sadly we have forgotten how to apply that art to our politics today.

The founding fathers were not clad in chalked togas. They did not descend a holy mountain bearing law. They were flawed men as all men are. It is important to realize that an 18th century man could not conceive of what the future would bring. They built means to amend and adapt the constitution to fit the times. They could not conceive of automatic weapons, thermonuclear warheads atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, sewage treatment plants, hydroelectric dams, Oregon or cotton candy.

Somewhat true but they wrote about bearing arms. And even if they didn't consider advancement of weaponry and we were still armed with those same old muskets, our firepower would still be lethal.

There was not a musket above every hearth.

And you know this how?

Nosmo probably doesn't think Paul Revere said, "To arms, to arms..........!, but said, "To clubs, to pitchforks! The British are coming!"

And there was not a 100% turnout by the citizens.

Yup! They even had liberal craven cowards back in those days. No biggie.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Somewhat true but they wrote about bearing arms. And even if they didn't consider advancement of weaponry and we were still armed with those same old muskets, our firepower would still be lethal.

There was not a musket above every hearth.

And you know this how?

Nosmo probably doesn't think Paul Revere said, "To arms, to arms..........!, but said, "To clubs, to pitchforks! The British are coming!"

And there was not a 100% turnout by the citizens.

Yup! They even had liberal craven cowards back in those days. No biggie.

Yup. Rooting for George III, or staying quiet so they could later say they supported the winner, whoever it might be.

 

[SavannahMann]

It was written incredibly clearly, and were you better educated you would understand that fact. It was so well written that despite decades of effort to undermine it, and claim it means other than what it truly does, it is still here preventing progressives from turning this country into yet another charnel house.

Well, moron, it is a bit puzzling why the FF chose to use the word "militia" in that 2A instead of simply and openly stating every American.......of course, there was that bothersome factor of all those black slaves.....LOL

I answered the Militia question in another reply. You should have read it. The Militia when the constitution was written was every able bodied man.

 

[SavannahMann]

Yes they would, and geres why... the Foundung Fathers would ve utterly disgusted with the Government we have today and would be seeking its overthrow just like they did in 1775. You need guns for thst.

You can't beat the US military with nothing but semi automatics. Would you all PLEASE wake up and smell the coffee?

The US Military was defeated in Vietnam. Yes, the North Vietnamese had support from the Russians, but the Russians did not invent the Pungi pit. The enemy would fight with whatever they had, old French bolt action rifles, bows and arrows, or sharpened stakes of wood.

We believed that technology was the king, and we were wrong. We entered Afghanistan with the same arrogance. This time, our technology would win. This time, we would be smarter. This time, we would get the people on our side. This time is turning out to be exactly like the last several times.

So let’s consider that technology. You say you can’t defeat it with semi-automatic rifles. Somewhat true, as far as it goes. But how does that technology work? It isn’t magic. It needs parts, and it needs fuel. A lot of fuel. Helicopters burn fuel by the ton. Jets burn even more. Tanks, trucks, and even drones burn a lot of fuel. All of that fuel is shipped in. Trucks, trains, even pipelines. Those are called lines of communication. It’s a fancy phrase for line of supply.

Britain and America had the most powerful fleets in the world when the Second World War started, and they were nearly defeated by a handful of Submarines which were able to come perilously close to strangling Britain. Churchill said the battle of the Atlantic, the U Boats, were the only thing that truly frightened him. That was the one thing that could have won the war for the Germans.

Supplies is the vulnerable tail that wags the military dog. As an example of how some people just don’t get that, I’ll use 9-11.

The Terrorists were determined to attack symbols of America. A brilliant blow against the hated West. Yet, they were idiots. There were a lot more targets that would have had a far more devastating impact. Attacking four refineries would have crippled our economy. Attacking the Hoover Dam would have crippled the South West power and water for a decade, or more.

Instead, we got lucky. The Terrorists attacked symbols. We were stung, even hurt a little. But we did not suffer a terrible blow.

Don’t worry, this lesson has yet to be learned by those who won’t study History. We were fortunate that the Terrorists consider it a plus to be ignorant of anything but the Koran. If they had studied History, they would have learned that the biggest mistake the Japanese made during Pearl Harbor was not attacking the oil tanks and repair docks. Without those, the ships in Pearl Harbor would have been stranded for want of fuel for months. With those, we were able to get the submarines and carrier task forces out and fighting. The nearest Oil for the fleet if the tanks had been damaged would have been in San Diego, some three thousand miles away, with almost no tankers to move it.

Truckers have to carry the fuel to the Military. If the pipelines are damaged, and I think we can agree they would be during a civil war, then the only source of fuel would be trucks, or rail. Rail is easy to upset, and trucks are even easier. All the pretty and awesome technology would be stationary, unable to move for want of a ton of fuel.

Napoleon said that an army marched on it’s stomach. Today, that Army floats on a sea of diesel fuel. Without that fuel, the army doesn’t move. You’ve taken highly trained aircrews, and turned them into poorly trained infantry. You’ve taken experienced tankers, and turned them into inexperienced infantry. Your drone pilots, become poor excuses for guards.

I hope you're on my side. You think like a General.

I think like someone with some personal experience in the Military, and who studies history. All those convoys in Iraq that were attacked were not driving around for fun. They had supplies to deliver.

If you have 100 Soldiers, you need 300 meals a day to feed them. You need a dozen trucks to transport them. If they are going to fight they need 300 rounds each as a basic load. So you need food, fuel, trucks, parts to fix the trucks, ammunition, and information. That does not include housing, medical, and the rest.

For every infantryman in the Army there are ten soldiers who support him. That includes engineers, artillery, armor, aviation, logistics, map makers, dentists, medics, doctors, nurses, cooks, and the list goes on and on. You can’t ignore one without disaster appearing. No maps means no way to coordinate action. You need the cartographer as much as you need the artillery. All the maps have to be the same. That prevents artillery falling on the wrong people. Communication isn’t mentioned, but is vital.

If 3% of the population revolted, the end result would be victory for the rebels. If history is any indication that is.

 

[OldLady]

And yet it is the Right that has been consistently wrong at every turn of history. Slavery, environmental exploitation, labor rib, women's rights, Gay rights, civil rights.

Whenhas the Right been right?

Depends upon whether you read history or the Left's attempted rewrites.

Most recently with the marvelous electoral stomping of Hillary Clinton and the Forces of Evil by Donald Trump, and his inexorably proceeding disassembly of Obama's legacy.

It's almost gone!

Relying on a Russian thumb on the electoral scale then rolling back protections for the children of immigrants, the environment, homosexuals and the transgendered are not accomplishments that amount to "winning".

Stop being ridiculous. The Russians did not change one vote. The rest are matters of opinion.

The Russians have influenced many opinions with their campaign of divisiveness and their fake news. Opinions lead to choices when we vote. There is nothing ridiculous about that, is there?

I believe that all but a minuscule percentage of those who actually voted in 2016 made their choice the month the candidates were nominated. The mythical "undecided vote" was as fictional as the polls that showed Hillary ascending her rightful throne by huge margins. It served to keep her in the game.

So you think the Russians didn't step in until the conventions?
Hillary was the hugest mistake the Democrats have made in my lifetime. They'd best be thinking about it, although they'll not do so in public.

 

[westwall]

What's 'puzzling', is you focusing on the word militia, and ignoring the rest of the Amendment.

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," do you not understand?

Well, fuck head.....can you explain WHY the FF didn't just state "everyone" should own a gun rather than including that pesky term "militia"???

Because the People were educated back then and they knew what the phrase meant. Just like they understood that term "well regulated" meant that everything was in good working condition, the term had zero regulatory meaning at all. You have chosen to ignore the meaning of the words as they were written back then. Here's a clue for you, try reading medieval English sometime. Amazingly enough the words no longer mean the same thing anymore.

 

[sakinago]

Knowing what we now know about technology AND many Americans' propensities toward violence, would the Founding Fathers include the 2nd amendment as part of our Constitution?

Or would the wording of such a poorly written and unclear statement be more specific about guns' ownership?

Ok first off, the statement is very clear, unless you're trying to use mental gymnastics to try to get around it. If you are one of those people...does it make sense to you in the context of the BOR (which was all negative rights imposed onto the government), that the founders felt a need to include an amendment that said the right of the government forces to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Why would a government ever need to do that? Especially in a time where the PEOPLE, just stood up to fight the STATE, who was disarming the PEOPLE....why on earth would they feel the need to include in the BILL OF RIGHTS for citizens, that government forces had a right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed. Makes zero sense. And if you're still confused, instead of inserting your own storyline into "what did the founders mean with the 2nd amendment," go out and actually read about what they wrote!!! They talked, debated, wrote letters, transcribed it all, its right there in front of you. You don't have to guess or speculate on what they meant. We already know. I'm baffled that this argument of "what does the 2nd amendment actually mean, seems to be poorly written," that has been thoroughly debunked, even by pro gun control leftist constitutional professors, keeps getting mama birded and passed along leftist to leftist. Because it just takes a couple seconds of thinking for yourself to say wait...that doesn't really make sense. But they don't they just parrot what they hear.

To answer the main question, no they would not change it. They did not write the 2nd just bc you have a right to self defense, and to hunt, etc... the main reason the second amendment is there, is because a free society does not exist where the government has a monopoly of force. Back then there was no difference between a civilian gun and military gun, citizens could own the supreme firepower of the time, which were cannons. The 2nd was there so the government couldn't one day roll over on its citizens, like governments have done and continually do throughout history. Governments are the NUMBER 1 enemy of human rights, and the NUMBER 1 murderer of humans. Hands down, not even close. But when citizens are well armed, the government is not going to make laws that piss off the citizens. There going to be no Caesar crossing the rubicon, and there's going to be no Tianamen Sqaure. Read a history book

 

[westwall]

The 2A was extremely important to the Founders. They made that very clear in all their writings.

For one to ask this question, merely exposes oneself as an idiot and a brainwashed leftist dupe.

Funny how leftists do that with regularity, and don't even know it.

How "true"......arming every american sure as hell stopped the War of 1812, correct?

When the settlement that became our town marched out to meet the British, only two of the men had guns. The rest brought staves and pitchforks and axes. Guns were expensive. I don't think as many people owned them as might be believed.

That has been shown to be untrue. Looking at various last wills and testaments, researchers have shown that the Colonies were very heavily armed. In fact there was even a private artillery company founded in Boston back in the mid 1600's. It is still with us as a more fraternal organization now, but it was an active participant in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and the Spanish American War. It is called "The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston".

 

[Nosmo King]

Somewhat true but they wrote about bearing arms. And even if they didn't consider advancement of weaponry and we were still armed with those same old muskets, our firepower would still be lethal.

There was not a musket above every hearth.

And you know this how?

Nosmo probably doesn't think Paul Revere said, "To arms, to arms..........!, but said, "To clubs, to pitchforks! The British are coming!"

And there was not a 100% turnout by the citizens.

Yup! They even had liberal craven cowards back in those days. No biggie.

There was about a 30%, 30%, 30% split in the colonies. One third wanted independence, one third wanted to stay with Britain and one third remained on the sidelines waiting to see who prevailed.

 

[OldLady]

The 2A was extremely important to the Founders. They made that very clear in all their writings.

For one to ask this question, merely exposes oneself as an idiot and a brainwashed leftist dupe.

Funny how leftists do that with regularity, and don't even know it.

How "true"......arming every american sure as hell stopped the War of 1812, correct?

When the settlement that became our town marched out to meet the British, only two of the men had guns. The rest brought staves and pitchforks and axes. Guns were expensive. I don't think as many people owned them as might be believed.

That has been shown to be untrue. Looking at various last wills and testaments, researchers have shown that the Colonies were very heavily armed. In fact there was even a private artillery company founded in Boston back in the mid 1600's. It is still with us as a more fraternal organization now, but it was an active participant in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and the Spanish American War. It is called "The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston".

I was speaking very specifically of our local history, which is well documented by the Captain who had command of the volunteers who joined the battle. I take your word for it, although as an amateur genealogist, I've read a lot of Wills and do not recall guns. Or among the detailed listing of possessions of ancestors who died intestate. But maybe it's because I'm in the willy wags.

 

[nat4900]

why didn't they just say 'the right of the militia to keep and bear arms', instead of giving the right to ALL the people?

Because, nitwit, after the Revolutionary War the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the American distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army.

 

[nat4900]

Personally, I think the FF wrote it fuzzy because there was as much heated debate about it then as there is today. They kicked that can down the road, as well.

Those nascent states, back then, had a distrust of the federalists and right after the Revolutionary War, the army was disbanded, leaving ONLY loose state militias.

 

[Auld Phart]

why didn't they just say 'the right of the militia to keep and bear arms', instead of giving the right to ALL the people?

Because, nitwit, after the Revolutionary War the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the American distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army.

Did you not understand the question?

Lets try again.

"why didn't they just say 'the right of the militia to keep and bear arms', instead of giving the right to ALL the people?"

 

[nat4900]

Because, were you not a complete ignorant fool, you would KNOW that the "militia" was EVERYONE

So, fuck heads with guns......like you....are NOW part of a "militia"???......LOL

 

[nat4900]

The 'right' of the people' to keep and bear arms has been steadily eroding.

Well, THAT would explain why there are so few gun deaths in the U.S., correct???

 

[gipper]

Knowing what we now know about technology AND many Americans' propensities toward violence, would the Founding Fathers include the 2nd amendment as part of our Constitution?

Or would the wording of such a poorly written and unclear statement be more specific about guns' ownership?

Ok first off, the statement is very clear, unless you're trying to use mental gymnastics to try to get around it. If you are one of those people...does it make sense to you in the context of the BOR (which was all negative rights imposed onto the government), that the founders felt a need to include an amendment that said the right of the government forces to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Why would a government ever need to do that? Especially in a time where the PEOPLE, just stood up to fight the STATE, who was disarming the PEOPLE....why on earth would they feel the need to include in the BILL OF RIGHTS for citizens, that government forces had a right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed. Makes zero sense. And if you're still confused, instead of inserting your own storyline into "what did the founders mean with the 2nd amendment," go out and actually read about what they wrote!!! They talked, debated, wrote letters, transcribed it all, its right there in front of you. You don't have to guess or speculate on what they meant. We already know. I'm baffled that this argument of "what does the 2nd amendment actually mean, seems to be poorly written," that has been thoroughly debunked, even by pro gun control leftist constitutional professors, keeps getting mama birded and passed along leftist to leftist. Because it just takes a couple seconds of thinking for yourself to say wait...that doesn't really make sense. But they don't they just parrot what they hear.

To answer the main question, no they would not change it. They did not write the 2nd just bc you have a right to self defense, and to hunt, etc... the main reason the second amendment is there, is because a free society does not exist where the government has a monopoly of force. Back then there was no difference between a civilian gun and military gun, citizens could own the supreme firepower of the time, which were cannons. The 2nd was there so the government couldn't one day roll over on its citizens, like governments have done and continually do throughout history. Governments are the NUMBER 1 enemy of human rights, and the NUMBER 1 murderer of humans. Hands down, not even close. But when citizens are well armed, the government is not going to make laws that piss off the citizens. There going to be no Caesar crossing the rubicon, and there's going to be no Tianamen Sqaure. Read a history book

One can always identify a gun grabbing leftist. They clearly know nothing of history or the true meaning of the Bill of Rights.

 

[nat4900]

Did you not understand the question?

Lets try again.

"why didn't they just say 'the right of the militia to keep and bear arms', instead of giving the right to ALL the people?

take a course in reading comprehension and THEN get back to me, moron...LOL

 

[nat4900]

One can always identify a gun grabbing leftist. They clearly know nothing of history or the true meaning of the Bill of Rights.

Don't forget to also hold on to your balls......LOL

 

[Auld Phart]

Did you not understand the question?

Lets try again.

"why didn't they just say 'the right of the militia to keep and bear arms', instead of giving the right to ALL the people?

take a course in reading comprehension and THEN get back to me, moron...LOL

I'm not the one with the comprehension problem.

That be...

 

[hjmick]

Knowing what we now know about technology AND many Americans' propensities toward violence, would the Founding Fathers include the 2nd amendment as part of our Constitution?

Or would the wording of such a poorly written and unclear statement be more specific about guns' ownership?

That depends on whether or not there would again be states that opposed ratification without the Second like there was the first time...