Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A guy I was talking to today at work said the the founding fathers wanted us to have guns. (Original Post) redstatebluegirl Mar 2018 OP
I'm not too sure of that. no_hypocrisy Mar 2018 #1
I think the NRA is just arming both sides against the middle. iscooterliberally Mar 2018 #2
Actually, they wanted us to have life, liberty, and happiness Xipe Totec Mar 2018 #3
Well, "pursuit of happiness", anyway. sl8 Mar 2018 #5
What they really thought was that states should have militias. PoindexterOglethorpe Mar 2018 #4
They didn't want to foot the bill for a standing peacetime army. It's as simple as that. Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2018 #6
Not a fan of either Madison's or Hamilton's views on the topic, I take it? sl8 Mar 2018 #9
Yes, and they also conscripted every free able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of ... Jim__ Mar 2018 #7
Did he laugh? pintobean Mar 2018 #8
As usual he just looked very confused and angry. redstatebluegirl Mar 2018 #12
they did. maxsolomon Mar 2018 #10
Number one, not true Downtown Hound Mar 2018 #11

no_hypocrisy

(45,786 posts)
1. I'm not too sure of that.
Thu Mar 8, 2018, 03:45 PM
Mar 2018

If every colonist had a musket or two, the Revolutionary War could have been protracted with more fatalities.

Not everyone was for Independence and there were plenty of "Loyalists" (to the King). Would arming literally everyone have been a good idea? Not then, and not now.

I'm getting a sinking feeling that the NRA has an agenda to arm as many RW nuts as possible and then let them loose to topple democracy with their militias.

iscooterliberally

(2,849 posts)
2. I think the NRA is just arming both sides against the middle.
Thu Mar 8, 2018, 03:49 PM
Mar 2018

The NRA pedals fear to sell more guns. When something bad happens, they say we need more guns. I heard on NPR the other day that there are currently more retail outlets in the US where you can buy a gun than there are Starbucks locations on the entire planet.

sl8

(13,584 posts)
5. Well, "pursuit of happiness", anyway.
Thu Mar 8, 2018, 04:19 PM
Mar 2018

The founding fathers weren't all crazy, cockeyed optimists, given to think that happiness was guaranteed. They might not have even thought of it as achievable.

So as to end on an upbeat note, and for your listening pleasure, one cockeyed optimist:



Tommy_Carcetti

(43,085 posts)
6. They didn't want to foot the bill for a standing peacetime army. It's as simple as that.
Thu Mar 8, 2018, 04:22 PM
Mar 2018

Clearly that view has long since evolved, and unless your co-worker wants to advocate for the abolition of the U.S. Military, the original intent of the 2nd Amendment has long since outlived its practicality.

sl8

(13,584 posts)
9. Not a fan of either Madison's or Hamilton's views on the topic, I take it?
Thu Mar 8, 2018, 04:42 PM
Mar 2018

Madison [Federalist 46]
...
It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
...

Hamilton [Federalist 29]
...
If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
...



You think that their well-founded, well-spoken suspicions of a federal, standing army can be reduced to budgetary concerns? I don't think that you give them enough credit.

You make a good point about the evolution of their views, though.



Jim__

(14,045 posts)
7. Yes, and they also conscripted every free able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of ...
Thu Mar 8, 2018, 04:31 PM
Mar 2018

... 18 and 45 into a local militia company.

The Second Militia Act of 1792 as described in wikipedia:

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages of 18 and 54 in 1862.)

Militia members, referred to as "every citizen, so enrolled and notified", "...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[5] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen.

The militias were divided into "divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies" as the state legislatures would direct.[6] The provisions of the first Act governing the calling up of the militia by the president in case of invasion or obstruction to law enforcement were continued in the second act.[7] Court martial proceedings were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed orders.[8]

Downtown Hound

(12,618 posts)
11. Number one, not true
Thu Mar 8, 2018, 05:45 PM
Mar 2018

Number two, even if true, who cares? The founding fathers were not infallible beacons of perfection and all powerful knowledge, and it's time we stop treating them as such.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A guy I was talking to to...