Our Founding Fathers Wanted The Deadliest Weapons Available
Our Founders believed in controlling guns - carefully, so they'd hit redcoats when they fired.
-
Tools:
When the Left says our Founding Fathers never intended for us to have assault rifles, they are entirely missing the history which motivated the Second Amendment: It was called the American Revolution.
The American colonies were rebelling against the military powerhouse - the English Redcoats and their mercenaries who had won wars all around the world. Our adversaries were well-seasoned, professional soldiers, armed with the very latest in high-tech military hardware: muzzleloaders and cannons.
Today's socialists, through revisionist history, probably think the colonists simply didn't try hard enough to negotiate a conflict-free existence. Or, that they they should have conducted "peaceful protests" throughout the colonies.
Nope. In order to gain freedom from an enemy who wants your labor and your land badly enough to shed your blood to get it, you actually have to kill. Revolutionary soldiers had to put themselves in harm's way.
This meant shooting with the most lethal firearm available. The muzzleloader basically fired one shot at a time with a distance of 100 yards. Imagine how horrendous - being so close to your enemy, the World's Best Military.
Americans were firing old, beat-up British guns; the typical soldier was also a farmer, so his gun wasn't necessarily in a state of good repair. They needed newer and better firearms to have any chance of victory.
Ben Franklin found the solution in France, Britain's archnemesis. France provided America with stronger, even more modern firepower - the "Charleville" muskets. Compared to conventional muzzleloaders, these were lighter, with superior accuracy and included a 15-inch bayonet.
Shocker! Our Founding Fathers sought out the deadliest weapons available on the entire planet during the American Revolution.
America in 1776 would have used any available upgrade over the muzzleloader. A standard revolver? Check. Gatling gun? Check. AR-15? Checkmate. Why? To win the war - to win our freedom.
And the English would have done the same in order to keep us from fighting ourselves free from their rule.
The Second Amendment guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms. Liberals believe our Founding Fathers never intended for us to have assault rifles, the most powerful weapons available to American citizens today.
The Founders knew exactly what they were writing. These men had used the greatest firearms of their time period to win a war. In essence, they had their "AR-15" - obviously not as deadly as the one we have, but it was the deadliest gun known to man at the time they lived.
They understood we would need firepower to protect ourselves from tyranny - something the Founders were all too familiar with. They also recognized that foreign countries could be a future threat.
And the Lefties forget one of the major reasons the Revolution even occurred: In 1774, the British stopped selling firearms and gunpowder to the Colonies. They then confiscated guns and powder; in Boston, the English routinely conducted warrantless searches and seizures. When the Redcoats marched on Lexington and Concord for further disarmament, the rest became history - the American Revolution.
Re-read the last paragraph: When guns and ammunition are taken from law-abiding citizens, the people will not react kindly to the Liberals' goals - whether it is 1775 or 2021.
"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
The Left needs to be careful what they wish for.
This article was reprinted from a different site. Editing and commentary may be added.
-
Tools:
What does Chinese history have to teach America that Joe Biden doesn't know?
I agree 100% that the Founding Fathers expected citizens to bear arms to prevent government from doing exactly what our government is doing. The Founding Fathers wanted the government to understand that the populace could come for them if they violated the Constitution and our rights. Unfortunately, the government isn't afraid of or intimidated by us since they have the military, but they are a bit unsettled and would prefer only criminals, who aren't interested in rights, have guns while we, the law abiding deplorables, have no defense against the government or the criminals.
There's no such thing as an "assault rifle". Using that misnomer to describe an AR-15 gives the impression that the AR-15 is on par with a 50 cal machine gun or a bazooka. The word was created by the left. Knives are used to kill far more people than AR-15's but no one calls a knife an "assault knife". Unless we are precise with our words, and call the left out when they use these type words, we will continue to lose ground to them.
Rico is spot on. They are not assault rifles and we need to stop acknowledging that to the left.
Resisting unjust governments is a problem for Christians because the Bible commands that we obey government:
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. Romans 13:1-2
Obeying God is more important than obeying government - the apostles disobeyed when told not to preach in Jesus' name:
And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. Acts 4:18-19
God also expects government officials to encourage good behavior and discourage bad:
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Romans 13:3-4
This question was debated before the American revolution. The decision to "resist the power" was based on the fact that King George had broken the terms of the charters under which the colonies had been established. As an oath-breaker, he was not promoting good.
The Governor of Virginia swears an oath "... I will to the utmost of my power, protect the citizens of the commonwealth in the secure enjoyment of their rights, franchises, and privileges ..."
His proposed anti-gun laws do the precise opposite of his oath. As an oath-breaker, his citizens are no more obligated to follow him than the colonists were obligated to obey King George.
On top of that, rumors are flying that Virginia school districts are planning to forbid homeschooling. The Bible assigns decisions about how to teach children to their parents, not to the government:
Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Galatians 4:1-2
Parents have no Biblical obligation to obey a government that insists that they educate their children in a manner that violates parents' beliefs.
It is completely accurate to state that the 'AR' in AR-15 or AR-10 stands for Armalite, the original patenting company not for Assault Rifle. It is also completely accurate to state that Assault Rifle is a meaningless term as there are dozens of laws on the books across the US all of which define it differently, and it wasn't even a term 30 years ago, long after the AR-15 became the standard gun provided to US infantry.
However, those who support civil rights (including 2nd amendment civil rights) should equally not become fixated on Assault Rifles. Just because the Hughes amendment outlawed new full-auto guns in 1984 does not mean that somehow that is magically within the allotted boundary protected by the 2nd amendment. In fact, the 2nd amendment could far more easily be construed to go the opposite direction... only when a weapon IS a weapon of war is it protected by the 2nd. Of note, this does have existing Supreme Court concurrence. You desire an automatic launcher for martial arts style throwing stars? Not useful for war, so not protected by the 2nd. You desire a new F-35? Useful for war, so certainly protected by the 2nd... step right up with credit card in hand!
I implore you not to give the dialogue to liberals on this point. It is BECAUSE it is useful for war that it is enshrined within our Constitution that we MUST have access to it as private citizens. Cannons, warships, grenades and even large capacity semi-auto rifles ALL were in existence and held in private hands within the colonies before, during and after the signing of the Constitution and it's accompanying Bill of Rights (including the 2nd amendment). The entire POINT of having them was that they were Assault Rifles (and ships and cannons, etc)... and so used to Assault a tyrannical and oppressive regime.
The AR-15 was *never* "the standard gun provided to US infantry".
To AlphaDog... your comment has no direct relation to my point above, but I will bite (pun intended).
What is commonly referred to today as an AR-15 is technically an AR-15 clone, as it is designed for maximum parts interchange with the actual AR-15 rifle. The AR-15 was (since 1964 under military designation M-16), is (in it's modern incarnation of M-4) and quite possibly will be going well into the future (NGSW-R submission by Sig). Specifics and attributions here follow.
1) AR-15 was designed by Eugene Stoner for ArmaLite as a scaled down version of his previously designed AR-10 platform (also previously rejected by the US Army)
2) Around 1,000 select fire AR-15s were first sold to the Air Force
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/06/m-16-a-bureaucratic-horror-story/545153/
3) The Manufacturing contract was awarded to Colt in 1963 based on concerns with ArmaLite scaling necessary manufacturing capability.
https://www.colt.com/timeline
4) The US Army designates their new rifle as the M16. Early Colt demonstration models are even marked Colt AR-15 and are worth a fair amount as collector's items. Most (but not all) of these models are select fire (fully-automatic).
http://www.ponyexpressfirearms.com/products/colt-sp1-ar-15-1964-manufacture-rifle/
5) Multiple models are currently in service with all branches of the US Military, most modern issued weapons falling under the M4 designation.
6) US Army's Next Generation Squad Weapon program (NGSW) is in process of selecting the next issue weapon. One of the 3 main submissions is from Sig Sauer, and is based quite closely on the original ArmaLite designed AR-15. Of course, this submission also uses a few modifications throughout the rifle as well as a custom ammunition package.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/02/03/sig-sauer-delivers-final-next-generation-squad-weapon-prototypes-army.html
Going back to my point made earlier... PLEASE do not cede territory to the anti-civil rights campaigners. We have the Honor, Privilege and Duty as citizens of this great United States of America to be ready to serve our country if required. The only way to be ready to serve is to have the appropriate tools thereof. I will leave this message with two great quotes from George Washington.
"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."
I will repeat myself. The AR-15 was *never* "the STANDARD gun provided to US infantry".
Let's just say it again for clarity: The AR-15 IS NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE!!!
Only the military uses what can be loosely considered an assault rifle. Change the meaning of the words from a noun to verb and any firearm can be used for the action of assaulting. Lefties love playing word and grammar games so don't be fooled.
Additionally, it has been said that the reason the Japanese didn't actually attempt to invade the Mainland of America is because in addition to our formidable military, they knew most Americans had firearms and knew how to use them.
Yeah Lefties, be careful what you wish for...
A bullet kills from whichever firearm is comes from