Hobbit
06-26-2008, 01:58 PM
In the dissenting opinion on the DC gun ban case, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
This is quite possibly the most ignorant statement involving the founding fathers I have heard all year. In answer to that...yes, yes we would have you believe that, mainly because it's true. In that time, English commoners were not allowed to possess most types of weapons, especially firearms. Part of the freedom of the New World was the freedom to own firearms, and many colonists purchased them, both to add to the protection the British provided from hostile natives and because they were allowed to hunt, and sometimes had to hunt to get enough food to survive (in Britain, game was property of the Crown and only with permission from the monarch could you hunt). When war broke out, many new colonial militias were formed by ordinary citizens who, on their own and without any sponsorship from a government, purchased their own firearms for the protection of themselves and their towns. It was largely due to the help of these militia that the colonists were able to defeat the British. The Colonial Army also made the first widespread use of rifles in combat. The colonists had purchased these guns for more accurate hunting, but they proved to be useful for picking out individual targets on a battlefield.
Now, the minority in the court and the liberals of the country would have us believe that the founders would not only allow the government, the very entity they were fighting for freedom from, to take away their firearms, but would write an entry in the Constitution allowing just that. That's a laugh.
This is quite possibly the most ignorant statement involving the founding fathers I have heard all year. In answer to that...yes, yes we would have you believe that, mainly because it's true. In that time, English commoners were not allowed to possess most types of weapons, especially firearms. Part of the freedom of the New World was the freedom to own firearms, and many colonists purchased them, both to add to the protection the British provided from hostile natives and because they were allowed to hunt, and sometimes had to hunt to get enough food to survive (in Britain, game was property of the Crown and only with permission from the monarch could you hunt). When war broke out, many new colonial militias were formed by ordinary citizens who, on their own and without any sponsorship from a government, purchased their own firearms for the protection of themselves and their towns. It was largely due to the help of these militia that the colonists were able to defeat the British. The Colonial Army also made the first widespread use of rifles in combat. The colonists had purchased these guns for more accurate hunting, but they proved to be useful for picking out individual targets on a battlefield.
Now, the minority in the court and the liberals of the country would have us believe that the founders would not only allow the government, the very entity they were fighting for freedom from, to take away their firearms, but would write an entry in the Constitution allowing just that. That's a laugh.