The Founder's Intent
Posted on 01/04/2013 11:17:31 AM PST by i88schwartz
WXIX-TV Tucson reporter Ben Swann takes a look at what he called the "politically incorrect" truth about the Second Amendment. In his "Reality Check" segment for the local FOX affiliate, Swann explains the true intention behind the Second Amendment.
"This is where American history becomes very politically incorrect because the Second Amendment was not drafted for hunting, or just self defense from an attacker. The Second Amendment was put into place to guarantee the rights of the individual to be equally armed as military, both foreign and domestic, in the event that the citizenry might actually, at some point, have to fight their own government," explained Swann.
"The Second Amendment is about making sure the population would not be controlled, dominated or oppressed by a government," Swann explained. "It's not my place to tell you what the Founders were thinking, or what they would be thinking today. But the principle of what they put into place had nothing to do with the kind of weapon they were guaranteeing, it was simply about matching force."
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
It is first and foremost, a protection FROM government, period!
One only need review the Declaration of Independence and the words “.....when in the course of human events .....that it becomes necessary to overthrow......etc.”
The men that crafted the Declaration and the Bill of Rights INCLUDING the Second Amendment knew oppression, knew sacrifice and knew what they wanted to prevent in future. They were inspired by God and resolute in their intentions and affirmation of our God-given rights.
I will not give up what has been given to me by God and affirmed to me by our Consitution. Ever. Not ever.
WXIX is in Cincinnati. Call letters for a Tucson station
would begin with a K.
Nicely, and succinctly stated.
And, dear FRiends, this is the best argument in favor of our Second Amendment. We should avoid being drawn into trivial discussions about magazine size or military appearance, and etc, as these are losing arguments when the opposing side is playing to emotions.
.
But there is a Tucson station with the call letters K GUN!
And KDKA in Pittsburgh, east of the Ohio, has a call letter with a K. There are exceptions
The Second Amendment most clearly defines the fundamental relationship between the citizens of this country and those we choose to govern us.
He is right, if you look at the other weapons of the period during the American Revolution the muzzleloading flintlock musket was the assault weapon of its time, it could fire a shot every 15 seconds up to 75 yards or so. The other weapons common in use were cannon, cutting weapons, flintlock pistols and rifles, which loaded slower. Taking into consideration the British were still trying to fight the traditional European way in columns or squares in the open, the Americans could annihilate the British with their muskets. No doubt about it, the founders of this country wanted the general populace to have advanced weaponry to combat a tyrannical government if they wanted it.
Finally a TV reporter who actually gets it. And now you know why they’re desperate to disarm us.
True - KDKA was the first station licensed and gets to keeps its call sign.
Love this guy!
Not about the type of weapon, but the ability to match force.
The british weapon of the period, the musket. Big heavy ball, smooth bore, useful for skirmish line volley fire at short to medium distance (tactics left over from Greek, Roman, Europa infantry).
The higher tech of the militia was the rifle! Smaller caliber, but able to knock an officer off his horse, whack a cannon lighter, or kill a lead team horse from well beyond musket range.
Love this guy!
If one really wanted to know what the Founders thought its quite easy to find out. They left volumes on the subject.
Good one, saving to disk.
Yes, the primary focus of recognizing the natural right/God given right codified by the Second Amendment is every citizen’s right to own and use firearms and other arms to deter and stop tyranny, from government and other such groups. This right also includes use of weapons for self defense, our selves and those we need to protect, recreation. hunting, collecting and all uses not in furtherance of a crime [crime in the old sense, not littering or failure to separate recyclables].
Perfectly said. Only those with a European mind-set , where an elite ruled guarded by police forces and military at its beck and call fail to understand this. Ironically, these same characters failed to understand that we had so much trouble subduing Iraq because Saddam had flooded the country with weapons. My son spent a year patrolling Bagdad, rounding up weapons and almost every household had multiple weapons. Aghanistan represents a similar problem, because the men are so inured to violence that All some Gideon has to do is to issue a call to arms and he has a fighting band to serve him.
Assuming that was your intended meaning, the same march is being started by the current regime. That renders the Second Amendment more critical to our survival than at any other recent time.
“....rights of the individual to be equally armed as military, both foreign and domestic....”
.
Then why can I not have fully automatic firearms and an Abrams tank parked in my garage would make me feel more secure.
Well, lots of the minute men had muskets, too. But they were hunters who knew the land and how to get close to their quarry. Hell, it’s less the weapon than the skill and determination to use it. Consider what Henry V did at Agincourt. His bowmen were as effective as machine gunners. At Waterloo, Wellington considered recruiting a company of archers, only to find that the training of such men required years if not decades. A medieval archer had back and shoulder muscles that were so huge he looked like a serious body builder. Going back to the 19th of April, the average colonist was probably a better shot than the average Redcoat. He went hunting for small game, at least very often.
Rommel managed to cut through the French Army with “tanks” than were smaller than a dump truck. Lot easier to maintain than an Abrams. Just weld some metal to protect the driver, the engine and the tires and mount some guns and you have a formidable weapon.
This guy nails it.
I need a tank.
One only need review the Declaration of Independence and the words “.....when in the course of human events .....that it becomes necessary to overthrow......etc.”
The men that crafted the Declaration and the Bill of Rights INCLUDING the Second Amendment knew oppression, knew sacrifice and knew what they wanted to prevent in future. They were inspired by God and resolute in their intentions and affirmation of our God-given rights.
I will not give up what has been given to me by God and affirmed to me by our Constitution. Ever. Not ever.
Very well said & I agree completely.
Boy, they would have a field day, eh?
Nice picture!!
Solid copy!
Beware the man who has one gun, he knows it well and will not miss.
From the archery point of view, if you haven’t seen it, check out Lars Andersen and the fastest forgotten archery on the you tube.
strength of pull on the bow notwithstanding, wouldn’t want to stand in front of him in anything less than two layers of dragon skin, and a car between.
Cheers
2nd amendment would seem to allow someone who could afford to buy anti-tank or anti-aircraft instruments, for example, to own them.
Of course it doesn’t allow anyone to use them or murder people with them.
On the former, you can, but you deal with the BATF.
And, dear FRiends, this is the best argument in favor of our Second Amendment. We should avoid being drawn into trivial discussions about magazine size or military appearance, and etc, as these are losing arguments when the opposing side is playing to emotions.
Also well put......
2nd (((ping)))!
“I love it when a plan comes together!”
For the first century and a half of our Republic, you could have such weapons.
I seem to recall in the late fifties or early sixties that the media somehow stumbled upon the fact that private individuals could own virtually anything available to the military.
The media discovered that a private individual had indeed bought many tons of larger weapons and was storing them on his large desert property. The liberals just about had a stroke thinking about all this firepower and have spent the last half century supporting infringement of the Second Amendment.
You notice that the would be tyrants and oligarchs sure are rushing to disarm us....
bmfl
“...But there is a Tucson station with the call letters K GUN!...”
Look for them to change those call letters pdq.
Also, IIRC, the Americans had rifled muskets, while the British were still using the smoothbore “Brown Bess.”
btt
I’m shocked, a journalist who gets it.
Because the FedMob has been infringing on our rights since 1934.
Big bttt! :)
I’ve heard the argument made that even with the weapons Americans possess, they could never beat the fire power of the US military. That is true. Our military could kill us all. But killing everyone and breaking everything in your own Nation won’t happen.
Resistence to an unconstituional, billergent, oppressive government won’t be a war won by the US government if it is waged against Americans over freedom. Americans would not tolerate it.
The government should not make the choice of treason against the constitution and American people. They have permitted the Kenyan to go too far in conducting his war on terror against selected Americans whom the Marxists hate. The KGBish spy development is dangerous...for the government.
The more they violate the constitutional rights of Americans, the more frightened of Americans they become. The more frightened they become, they more they violate America’s constitution and the more they are afraid. In the end, I would not want to be the treasonous idiots who made Americans my enemy.
Come on, Gaffer. A two second google search would have pulled up the correct verbiage from the Declaration.
Unfortunately for the sake of this otherwise excellent argument, Hitler never won an election.
You mean Hitler didn’t win with a majority. He did indeed win as do most leaders in a multi-party parliamentary state, with a plurality.
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another ...
(shh - my cousin many generations removed wrote it :-)
The 2nd amendment’s purpose is self-evident when observed in the context of the 1st and 3rd.
The 2nd Amendment protects the 1st amendment and our right to criticize the government.
And making it even more obvious that We the People were intended to be armed - is the 3rd Amendment:
“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
Without the 2nd Amendment, the citizen is powerless to deny consent to the would-be occupiers.
So, FU Comrade Feinswine - and stay the hell out of my house.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the other nine.
Hitler was never elected to anything.
He finished second in the 1932 German Presidential election, forcing a runoff with Paul von Hindenburg, which he also lost. He was then appointed Chancellor by von Hindenburg on 30 January 1933.
The only election Hitler ever won was his 1934 plebiscite over his assumption of state power, and even then he was not standing personally for election.
****** “Then why can I not have fully automatic firearms and an Abrams tank parked in my garage would make me feel more secure.” ******
If you had the $ you could... there is no law that is absolute, if you have the $ you can break “any” Law.
Welcome to the USSofA
TT
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.