Posted on 11/29/2015 9:40:42 AM PST by rktman
The Second Amendment was written when only single-shot muskets and pistols were available, and they were far more critical in hunting for food than any hunting weapon is today.
In 1776, the young nation’s leaders could not afford a standing army, so adopted the Swiss model of requiring certain citizens to be armed to maintain a ready and standby militia, and have the weapons of the day in their possession to enable that militia to assemble quickly if there was an external or internal threat. Hence, that’s what the American Founding Fathers clearly intended the Second Amendment to support.
Today, the Swiss have, quite a while back, called all those modern war weapons into a secure armory. But we Americans have not followed the original model used for the Second Amendment, and as Michael Shermer wrote in his op-ed (“Shooting data and firearm fantasies,†Oct. 11), we have allowed the NRA in particular, and a few “gun nutsâ€, to totally distort the amendment to their own commercial ends as an irrational lobbying organization for gun manufacturers.
We are the ONLY nation with such pervasive unregulated gun ownership, and have the highest murder and gun crime rates of any other country by far, more than all the deaths of Americans in all the wars, and multiple times the rates of other civilized nations.
(Excerpt) Read more at wvgazettemail.com ...
Armed = citizen
Unarmed = subject
Who is this Allen guy and why does he want to take away the God given right to defend one’s self and family?
Driving a car is a privilege. It is one, for which one must get and maintain a number of things for. Valid insurance, a current drivers license.
If you violate any number of things, you can lose that privilege.
Gun ownership is a constitutional right.
The second amendment is second only to free speech, in fact.
hey......... ask the HOLOCAUST JEWS how well taking away guns works....
That is a lie.
I suspect German Jews in 1944 would disagree with this proggie enemy of liberty.
To operate a car on private property, you don’t need a license, registration, or insurance. You can acquire and operate any car that you can afford. Does he really want to have those same conditions apply to guns? :=)
Tweddle dee dee.
He also writes elsewhere against coal and fossil fuels. Global warming is the great threat! And apparently he’s Canadian, although he lives in Charleston.
...to both civilians and military. So there was parity. Today there is not.
Nonsense continues from there.
For proof that “journalism” and “communications” majors would fail even the most elementary logic course, read this article.
You can own an Unregistered Car and drive it all you want on Private Property without having a License.
You are only required to be Licensed and driving a Registered Car on Public Roads.
It’s still a pathetic argument, but the Libs have to have something to bitch and moan about.
I always ask these Gun Control and Confiscation Morons if they will volunteer to be the Point Man when they invade a Patriots home looking for an Arsenal.
Last time I looked George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were two of the Founding Fathers. They both say Allan Tweddle is a lying sack of ....
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined...”
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
This is just from two of the smartest men this nation has ever produced. Allan Tweddle, You ain’t even in the same galaxy with any of them.
I notice Allen’s article does not have a comment section.
Brave fellow.
The First Amendment was written when type had to be set manually and the press was hand-powered by the Printer or his Apprentice—So I guess it doesn’t apply to anything, media-wise, that has since been developed.
I’d much rather live with an abundance of combat worthy Arms in the hands of every Citizen than endure the presence of even a few so-called “progressives”.
Tweedle-dee, Tweedle-dum. This fool’s First Amendment is alive and well.
You mean the First Amendment doesn’t apply to “Assault Printers” that spew out thousands of newspapers per minute? And the technology of transmitting information to millions of people simultaneously should only be in the hands of trained government representatives. It is far too powerful for private ownership.
“In 1776, the young nation’s leaders could not afford a standing army, so adopted the Swiss model of requiring certain citizens to be armed to maintain a ready and standby militia, and have the weapons of the day in their possession to enable that militia to assemble quickly if there was an external or internal threat.”
It wasn’t just expense. They had just lived under a standing army. And they knew that in Europe standing armies were mostly intended for keeping a firm hand on the population. (just like today)
They knew a rifle armed militia was, and still is, the ultimate defense tool that makes you invasion proof. Its lousy for foreign adventures, but a vicious bitter pill for any invader.
Almost impossible to overcome.
“Today, the Swiss have, quite a while back, called all those modern war weapons into a secure armory.”
A swiss militia man keeps a fully auto capable assault rifle at home to this day.
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.