Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The founding fathers understood: Guns safeguard liberty
SJ Mercury News ^ | 12/26/02 | Charles Wood

Posted on 12/26/2002 11:29:44 AM PST by NormsRevenge

Edited on 04/13/2004 3:30:05 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

MANY years ago, my family helped to settle a small town in a foreign country to escape religious persecution. Although distant, the government continued persecution and suppression of dissent -- an activity in which my family was directly involved.

Eventually, uniformed soldiers invaded my family's house, demanded quarters, and searched for guns that were hidden in the house.


(Excerpt) Read more at bayarea.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: banglist

1 posted on 12/26/2002 11:29:44 AM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
The title alone is worth a bookmark.
2 posted on 12/26/2002 11:34:08 AM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
If Thomas Jefferson came back to life in modern America, his first reaction would be to curse modern Americans as gutless cowards.
3 posted on 12/26/2002 11:37:32 AM PST by Comus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Reading the (excellent) book "The Arab Mind," I chanced across this little gem (p.221) that emphasizes the point above:

"The [Arab countries'] governments ... hesitated, at least until the most recent times, to impose their will on the people in matters that the latter opposed. For example, the Iraqi government was unable to carry out a program in 1932 because the people had no less than 100,000 rifles as against the 15,000 owned by the government." (And a ready willingness to use them, I might add...)

4 posted on 12/26/2002 11:43:30 AM PST by Eala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Amen, and AMEN.
5 posted on 12/26/2002 11:52:56 AM PST by JusticeLives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Comus
And his second would be to begin the process of revolution all over again.

My in-laws, who are a bunch of socialist, are directly linked to TJ. They take great pride in this fact, and I take great pride in pointing out that if TJ was alive today he would disown them.

Molon Labe!

6 posted on 12/26/2002 12:02:11 PM PST by 11Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
This column appears to be in rebuttal to "Did the founders want us to have GUNS?" Original article and Free Republic thread.
7 posted on 12/26/2002 12:31:57 PM PST by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Having the capability to overcome a government that becomes oppressive is the reason for the Second Amendment. Anyone who has read the Declaration Of Independence should understand that having guns or a means to defend freedom is actually a requirement for being a citizen of a free country.
Self defense is both for protection from evil doers who invade your personal residence as well as from governments that attempt to remove your freedom. Hunting for game is one of the benefits and not as necessary anymore since this country is capable of supplying this need.
For these reasons alone I will eventually own a gun some day.
8 posted on 12/26/2002 12:32:36 PM PST by Idlewise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I am actually surprised by the number of articles I have read that actually state that a "tyranical government" is not a worry today, thus such justification by the founding fathers for the 2nd Amendment does not apply.

Of course, those who make such comments are just the one's wanting to take away our guns so we can be forced to live up to their agenda.

9 posted on 12/26/2002 12:35:15 PM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
A response to a stupid column.
10 posted on 12/26/2002 12:35:21 PM PST by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Idlewise
I agree. Rifles and pistols are no longer enough to defeat a tyranical govt. Since the Constitution is a "living, flexible document", the right to bear arms should include the right to own tanks, fighter jets, flame throwers and the like. I'm still undecided about nuclear weapons, I at least think the individual states should be allowed to stockpile them rather than individual citizens.
11 posted on 12/26/2002 12:36:36 PM PST by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
bump
12 posted on 12/26/2002 12:39:40 PM PST by chuknospam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
Thanks. I think that we should have equivalent arms to have a fair fight but the support costs for anything above a rifle or hand gun is way above my salary. Just having sufficient arms to take a stand is actually enough for me as going down without a fight isn't the American way.
Sometimes just standing up and saying no is enough to hold the line and we still have a say in this government process so no need to get the heavy wepons just yet.
13 posted on 12/26/2002 1:03:20 PM PST by Idlewise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
safe guard liberty from forces within as well as from forces without. To argue that the right to bear arms was just to use in case of an invasion is wrong.
14 posted on 12/26/2002 1:15:16 PM PST by Destro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Idlewise
And you are waiting for ?
15 posted on 12/26/2002 1:17:28 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Idlewise; Gary Boldwater
Sometimes just standing up and saying no is enough to hold the line and we still have a say in this government process so no need to get the heavy wepons just yet.

The time we need heavy weapons is when we have had the light weapons (rifles/shotguns/pistols) taken away.

MOLON LABE

16 posted on 12/26/2002 3:19:41 PM PST by Frohickey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
Gary Boldwater said: "Rifles and pistols are no longer enough to defeat a tyranical govt."

Only if you intend to oppose the tyrannical government at its points of strength. If you attack it at its weak points, the "people" will win. It doesn't take much gasoline to ... Oops. Nevermind.

17 posted on 12/26/2002 4:24:25 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Actually, I have had my Curio & Relic license for a couple of years and have been exercising my right. It's one of the things that makes the Second Amendment real but, it does limit the right to what one may purchase.
18 posted on 12/26/2002 4:24:49 PM PST by Idlewise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Comus
Worse...Thomas Jefferson was a Democrat! What do you think he would have to say to the likes of Bill, Hill and little Chuckie Schumer when it comes to the subject of guns? I think this current version of the Democratic Party would make he and the rest of the Framers absolutely RETCH. Imagine what the Southern Democrats of the era of reconstruction would say to these folks? Think they might get tarred and feathered as "carpet baggers" and "scalawags?" I think so.
19 posted on 12/26/2002 4:32:55 PM PST by ExSoldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Idlewise
If you have to buy a permit to do something, that something is no longer your inalienable right to do, but rather a government-granted (and government-revocable) privilege, which you are allowed to do at the pleasure of your masters.
20 posted on 12/26/2002 4:41:00 PM PST by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
Thank you for taking the point of getting a license or permit to the next level. Since I can only use this right if licensed or permitted, it certainly is not the right I thought it was.
I am restricted to buying what is authorized by the licensing authority and the license also requires the signature of the county sheriff.
I am currently living in Maryland and close to D.C. so it seemed like a victory when I got the license.
21 posted on 12/26/2002 5:15:42 PM PST by Idlewise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: weikel
Bump!!!!
22 posted on 12/26/2002 5:18:07 PM PST by Sparta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
If you have to buy a permit to do something, that something is no longer your inalienable right to do, but rather a government-granted (and government-revocable) privilege, which you are allowed to do at the pleasure of your masters.

The "keep and bear" part already needs to be modified to "keep in your closet, if you are allowed to keep at all", in order to reflect reality.

It's amazing to me the number of people that continue to blather on about rights, freedom, and limited government in a country where it's damn near impossible to legally carry without getting government permission to exercise your 'rights', in a country where lots of people have 35 - 45% of their earnings taken from them and redistributed to pay for things they would never in a million years voluntarily pay their money towards, in a country where if you travel and the authorities demand ID you damn sure better have your 'papers' in order, in a country where the central government has sanctioned the slaughter of 45+ million babies by abortion.

Lets see, "Surveilance is freedom." and "restriction is not infringement" and "denial to exercise a right is no limitation of that right" and "the two party system has served us well." and "submitting to being a slave is being a good citizen". Most accept these lies.

We repeatedly see people destroyed by the central government who's only threat to the central government is in the ideas they promote. The Weavers, Branch Davidians, prolife activists and groups and tax protesters to name a few.

23 posted on 12/26/2002 5:59:43 PM PST by Lester Moore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Idlewise
Remember a License is a permit to do something that w/o such permission would be a trespass, unlawful or a tort.
24 posted on 12/26/2002 6:24:57 PM PST by Mikey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Comus
Jefferson and Liberty-Thomas Jefferson's 1800 presidential campaign song-A theme Song For Us here? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/809727/posts
25 posted on 12/26/2002 6:37:50 PM PST by quietolong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I'm very surprised to see this was published in the normally pc SJMN, and while it is well-written, Fred published a much zingier defense of the Second Amendment the other day in Toogood Reports.
26 posted on 12/26/2002 10:08:29 PM PST by mrustow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Fred on the Supremes

Who Are They Kidding?
The Supreme Court Makes the Constitution
Say Exactly Different Things

By
Fred Reed

Toogood Reports [Monday, December 23, 2002; 12:01 a.m. EST]
URL: http://ToogoodReports.com/

I'm trying to understand the Feddle Gummint. It's hard going, like driving a '53 Chevy through mud. Maybe it's because I grew up in the country, and wasn't very smart, and mostly studied my lunchbox. I never learned to understand things that didn't make sense.

Especially the Supreme Court.

Anyone who took civics in high school knows the Gummint is divided into five pieces: the media, the Supreme Court, Congress, the bureaucracy, and the president, pretty much in that order. And the Supreme Court is supposed to say whether the Constitution reckons a law is all right. That way no slick lawyer can slip in laws that make us into Comminist robots. At least, that's what this teacher lady told us.

I'm not sure it's working.

Somewhere I saw that there was a Supreme Court decision in 1896 called Plessey vs. Ferguson, about Negroes and white people, that said separate but equal was constitutional. They didn't say we had to do it. They just said it was fine with the Constitution.

Then in 1954 in Brown vs. the School Board, they said it wasn't constitutional.

Same Constitution.

I must be slow. I don't see how exactly the same Constitution can say exactly different things unless the court is just making them up as it goes along, and telling everyone the Constitution says so. That way we have to do whatever they say or the police get us. Like in Russia.

When the Court makes some decision that shows it hasn't got the judgment G-d gave a crabapple, which is usually, lawyers always talk about what the intent was of the Foundering Fathers. I guess that's reasonable. They wrote the Constitution, so if anybody knows what it means, it must be them. That's what those nine funny-looking apparitions in Washington are for: to figure out what the intent was.

Thing is, any fool can tell what the Fathers meant by looking at what they did.

Like the Second Amendment, that says, "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." They hadn't really figured out commas back then. Everybody argues like crazy about what "militia" meant, and did the Fathers really mean that everybody ought to be able to have guns, and it sounds all solemn and serious.

It ain't.

Back then, everyone and his Aunt Polly had guns, and all their pigs and chickens, and some tadpoles. The Foundling Fathers knew it. So did the Supreme Court. Nobody ever got upset about it. It never occurred to anyone that it was unconstitutional.

If the Fathers had intended something different, they'd have done something different.

It's the same with separation of church and state. Everybody knows that the Fathers didn't want the church to be the gummint, the way it usually was if somebody like Philip II was president. But did they mean that you couldn't have Christmas in school or sing Christmas carols on a public road? Of course not. In those days everybody put up mangers with Mary and Joseph in them and said prayers just about everywhere, especially if someone was looking, and nobody noticed it was unconstitutional. It only got that way recently.

What I think about the Court is, I'd rather be ruled by inbred possums.

Everybody knows why the Fathers stuffed freedom of speech into the Bill of Rights. It was because most of Europe was misruled by useless kings who whored around with courtesans and probably with the palace animals and were usually drunk and feebleminded and bought stupid jewels that looked like glass doorknobs with money they squeezed out of the peasants. And if anybody didn't like it and said so, he got burned at the stake.

So the Fathers wanted to protect political speech. That way when the president wanted to make people into robots they could say they didn't think so, not today. And they would have guns. Guns are a swell form of political expression.

Not now, though. The Court decided the First Amendment was about Expression, and dancing was expression, and nekkid dancing was even more expression, especially if it was on TV where children could watch it. So was all the outhouse language you hear in a low poolhall when everybody's drunk.

If the Fathers meant we had to watch Dottie Does Everybody, how come nobody noticed it, including them, until after 1950?

Ain't it something? Tom Jefferson was too dim to know what he meant his own self, and needs nine withered frauds to tell him. I guess that makes sense. Like rust cutter on doughnuts.

But if you work for the Feddle Gummint – well, this isn't a column about miracles but I mean if you get paid by the gummint – and you make a political statement about affirmative action and shiftlessness, and how you have to do your job and how come they don't, why, you get fired. That is political speech.

What it looks like is political speech is getting to be illegal but rutting like farm animals on TV at dinnertime is pretty near a constitutional duty. That's what Ben Franklin wanted, I guess.

Last I heard, the Fourth Amendment said, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The intent's as plain as warts on a prom queen. But now the Pentagon is going to spy on everybody's email and bank accounts and credit cards because there might be a terrorist somewhere in the world, and if a ninety-six year old Christian woman in a wheel chair wants to fly on an airplane the feddle police will body search her and now they're going to open all our suitcases to check out our books and sex toys and whether our clothes are clean. That's reasonable?

When I was a kid my teacher always said I was special and she hoped I'd go a long way, though I think she'd have been satisfied with the next county. Well, I hope she meant I was special dumb, because if I understand the Supreme Court right, they're just riverboat card-sharpers in Zorro suits. Just about nothing the Court makes us do ever occurred to the Fathers. Mostly it's what they were trying to get away from.

Those grifters are making it up. That's all.

27 posted on 12/26/2002 10:35:52 PM PST by mrustow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quietolong
bump
28 posted on 12/26/2002 10:55:46 PM PST by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
"Rifles and pistols are no longer enough to defeat a tyranical govt."

You need to read this:
"What good can a handgun do against an Army?"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/659714/posts
29 posted on 12/27/2002 8:28:47 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson