Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: PalePictures
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 373 next>>
Jun 9, 2017 20:43:11   #
Lesson of the Pencil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ERbC7JyCfU
Go to
May 31, 2017 10:40:48   #
That's interesting.
Seems to me that every president before Obama had "Back Channel communications with Moscow...
The reason was to keep thing from spinning out of control...Especially during the cold war.
Maybe that is why relations with Russia got so bad under Obama....There was no back channel communications...Everything was handled by the press.
If I had people continuing to leak information relative to my communications..I would create a back channel communications to stop leaks.
i would do it with China, Britian, India, Iran.....
I may not use the communications unless we had problems.
I think "Back Channel" communications is good....
Back Channel Communications <> Conspiracy

I must say this writeup did make me laugh.

Nothing is beyond the Pale........
Go to
May 18, 2017 16:43:12   #
Excellent post!

"In my world there are no Caesars"
Go to
May 15, 2017 20:03:50   #
Jim-Pops wrote:
Portrait of Emily with added multi color layer.


Nice photo.
You have a couple of flaws.
1) The light on the front shoulder is overwhelming.
2) Light in the background to camera right is also too hot.
3) You can edit out the light coming through the hair under the chin to remove those(Three) hot spots.

You could have solved these problems by moving your subject. It's a good idea to always shoot toward a more shaded background.
Everything else looks good to me.
Again good job.
Go to
May 7, 2017 15:03:33   #
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idjYSTDQOas
Go to
May 6, 2017 21:47:16   #
Rab-Eye wrote:
For a while, I went with an agency issued .40 S&W, but eventually went back to my personal favorite, the .45 ACP. Unfortunately (although, thankfully I never needed it and I'm here to tell the tale), my concealed backup was a .380. This was before the mini-Glocks and other concealable 9's, 40's, and 45's. For me, an ankle holster wasn't an option--I'm too slow getting to one.


I like the S&W M&P Shield in 45 with thumb safety. IMHO it is the best concealed carry there is for the money.
I guess I am a little old school and like a thumb safety.(Not available on a glock).....Although I don't engage the thumb safety when carrying.
ALIENGEAR is a great holster match for the M&P

http://aliengearholsters.com/alien-gear-cloak-tuck-3-0-iwb-holster-inside-the-waistband.html


Nice photo!
Go to
Apr 26, 2017 20:00:52   #
Texcaster wrote:
Mr. Beauchamp, English Bobsplainin' to Little Bill. "You take out the best shooter first and then ..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRi_u4GbfIw


and this is how it really happens....not in the movies.
Notice the second shooter runs....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iFo1TrYMq4
Go to
Apr 26, 2017 15:46:40   #
dpullum wrote:
Huh??? so if you were on that train with a 9mm having two 18 round clips you would have taken out 36 teens before being beaten to death?? The article did not mention that they were Black and Hispanic Moslem teens.

What are you trying to tell us?? That if all the riders had guns that the bullets from fifty legal riders would have been flying around only hitting in the words of the dry drunk president Baby Bush ... hitting only evil doers??

What??


NO...I'm telling you that if 50 people were armed on that bus that the teens would have went somewhere else.
There is a reason why Gun shows don't get robbed...and Pawn shops very rarely.
Secondly if you had only one 18 round clip and dropped two of the guys...My bet is that the others would have went to the other end of the train...
I guess we live in two different worlds.
I've seen what people do when someone gets the drop on them first.
The first rule of thumb when someone :has the drop on you" is comply. Even if you have a gun. You wait till the gun moves turn your body and conceal your pull....
Remember Bernhard Goetz?
"An armed society is a courteous society"
Go to
Apr 17, 2017 11:16:05   #
Excellent video!
Go to
Apr 15, 2017 11:58:57   #
ken hubert wrote:
And they gave a way to admend the Constitution. And it wasn't by the courts finding imaginary rights where there are none, such as a******n and gay rights. Nor did they intend for bureaucrats to make laws twisting their meaning into something unintended.


and that is what I mean by constitutionalist....
"Imagined rights"
Go to
Apr 15, 2017 11:11:21   #
One further note...For anyone looking to decipher the Founders intent....
Letter from Jefferson to Madison on the "Bill of Rights"
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0210
Go to
Apr 15, 2017 10:58:47   #
continued.....

The sum of these amendments is,
1. General Suffrage.
2.Equal representation in the legislature.
3.An executive chosen by the people.
4. Judges elective or amovable.
5. Justices, jurors, and sheriffs elective.
6. Ward divisions. And
7. Periodical amendments of the constitution.

I have thrown out these as loose heads of amendment, for consideration and correction; and their object is to secure self-government by the republicanism of our constitution, as well as by the spirit of the people; and to nourish and perpetuate that spirit. I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our e******n between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers. Our landholders, too, like theirs, retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must wander, like theirs, in foreign countries, and be contented with penury, obscurity, exile, and the glory of the nation. This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance. And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new t***hs disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. It is this preposterous idea which has lately deluged Europe in blood. Their monarchs, instead of wisely yielding to the gradual change of circumstances, of favoring progressive accommodation to progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses, entrenched themselves behind steady habits, and obliged their subjects to seek through blood and violence rash and ruinous innovations, which, had they been referred to the peaceful deliberations and collected wisdom of the nation, would have been put into acceptable and salutary forms. Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs. Let us, as our sister States have done, avail ourselves of our reason and experience, to correct the crude essays of our first and unexperienced, although wise, virtuous, and well-meaning councils. And lastly, let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be, nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself, that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind, that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years, should be provided by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure. It is now forty years since the constitution of Virginia was formed. The same tables inform us, that, within that period, two-thirds of the adults then living are now dead. Have then the remaining third, even if they had the wish, the right to hold in obedience to their will, and to laws heretofore made by them, the other two-thirds, who, with themselves, compose the present mass of adults? If they have not, who has? The dead? But the dead have no rights. They are nothing; and nothing cannot own something. Where there is no substance, there can be no accident. This corporeal globe, and everything upon it, belong to its present corporeal inhabitants, during their generation. They alone have a right to direct what is the concern of themselves alone, and to declare the law of that direction; and this declaration can only be made by their majority. That majority, then, has a right to depute representatives to a convention, and to make the constitution what they think will be the best for themselves. But how collect their voice? This is the real difficulty. If invited by private authority, or county or district meetings, these divisions are so large that few will attend; and their voice will be imperfectly, or falsely pronounced. Here, then, would be one of the advantages of the ward divisions I have proposed. The mayor of every ward, on a question like the present, would call his ward together, take the simple yea or nay of its members, convey these to the county court, who would hand on those of all its wards to the proper general authority; and the voice of the whole people would be thus fairly, fully, and peaceably expressed, discussed, and decided by the common reason of the society. If this avenue be shut to the call of sufferance, it will make itself heard through that of force, and we shall go on, as other nations are doing, in the endless circle of oppression, r*******n, reformation; and oppression, r*******n, reformation, again; and so on forever.

These, Sir, are my opinions of the governments we see among men, and of the principles by which alone we may prevent our own from falling into the same dreadful track. I have given them at greater length than your letter called for. But I cannot say things by halves; and I confide them to your honor, so to use them as to preserve me from the gridiron of the public papers. If you shall approve and enforce them, as you have done that of equal representation, they may do some good. If not, keep them to yourself as the effusions of withered age and useless time.

I shall, with not the less t***h, assure you of my great respect and consideration.

I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt... Only lay down true principles, and adhere to them inflexibly.
Go to
Apr 15, 2017 10:57:40   #
Frosty wrote:
*******
Nearly all the quotes you have cited are opinions that have to do with what eventually became a compromise 2nd amendment......and nearly all support my contention that the interpretations of the constitution has changed.

You are trying to change this discussion from my contention that the constitution is a flexible living document to one about gun rights.

The letters you cite mainly support my contention that the founders main concern was to avoid a large standing army by having trained and armed citizens organized into local m*****as led by appointed officers. This concept gradually changed after the Civil War. You are trying desperately to make this about gun ownership of which we actually agree if you were to really read my posts. You keep arguing about the right of the people to own guns. I am arguing that the interpretations of the constitution changes over time. Two different things.

I am saying that the original purpose of the second amendment was as stated in the amendment that is to have a well trained m*****a. You are arguing that it is about owning guns for no specified purpose. That is precisely what I am contending.......that the interpretation of the constitution has changed,

You seem obsessed with the guns rights issue and completely ignore my points about the authority of the Supreme Court having changed or about the funding of the armed forces or the other issues. All of which. including your
preoccupation with gun rights, support my position that we don't have a rigid constitution.

You seem to like to quote Jefferson, so here is a quite from him saying we need a new constitution every 20 years unless we amend it to keep up with modern science and society.

**********
The Founding Father That Wanted the Constitution to Change Every 20 years.


Thomas Jefferson believed that a constitution should adapt to changing circumstances.
Thomas Jefferson believed that a constitution should adapt to changing circumstances.
When Thomas Jefferson asserted that a constitution should change every 19 to 20 years, he was expressing a deep-rooted conviction that governments need to adapt to survive. Although he did not personally participate in drafting the U.S. Constitution, he had strong opinions about what political leaders had to do in order to make it work.


Thomas Jefferson's Letter to Samuel Kercheval
In an 1816 letter to Virginia lawyer Samuel Kercheval on the subject of calling a convention to revise the state's constitution, Jefferson stated that a constitution should be revised every 19 to 20 years. Jefferson's proposed time period was based on the era's mortality rate. Since a majority of adults at any point in time would likely be dead in approximately 19 years, he reasoned, a new generation should have the right to adapt its government to changing circumstances instead of being ruled by the past.

The 20-Year R*******n
Jefferson's belief in the importance of periodic political change was not limited to state constitutions. For example, in 1787, while he was away serving as the country's ambassador to France, Jefferson wrote a letter to John Adams' assistant discussing the national Constitutional Convention. In this letter, Jefferson mentioned Shays' R*******n, an armed protest in Massachusetts, and wrote, "god forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a r*******n." However, Jefferson did not regard violent conflict as intrinsically necessary. In a letter written shortly before his death in 1824, Jefferson stated that the U.S. Constitution could last perpetually if it were regularly amended to reflect new developments in science and society.
******* br Nearly all the quotes you have cited ar... (show quote)



You obviously have never read the letter to Samuel Kercheval.
The idea behind this letter was to prevent the very thing that is happening to this country now.
Which is the loss of liberty. Guns were a part of that liberty. To help make liberty as "eternal" as it could possibly be.
I assure you your use of this letter is totally out of context.
The talk of the day was how to best preserve liberty.
To deny the use of guns to preserve liberty "of the people" was never considered.
This is what I mean by a constitutionalist.
You take a position and try to make a case fit.

Here is the letter to Samuel Kercheval....The intent was obvious.

"SIR,
-- I duly received your favor of June the 13th, with the copy of the letters on the calling a convention, on which you are pleased to ask my opinion. I have not been in the habit of mysterious reserve on any subject, nor of buttoning up my opinions within my own doublet. On the contrary, while in public service especially, I thought the public entitled to frankness, and intimately to know whom they employed. But I am now retired: I resign myself, as a passenger, with confidence to those at present at the helm, and ask but for rest, peace and good will. The question you propose, on equal representation, has become a party one, in which I wish to take no public share. Yet, if it be asked for your own satisfaction only, and not to be quoted before the public, I have no motive to withhold it, and the less from you, as it coincides with your own. At the birth of our republic, I committed that opinion to the world, in the draught of a constitution annexed to the "Notes on Virginia," in which a provision was inserted for a representation permanently equal. The infancy of the subject at that moment, and our inexperience of self-government, occasioned gross departures in that draught from genuine republican canons. In t***h, the abuses of monarchy had so much filled all the space of political contemplation, that we imagined everything republican which was not monarchy. We had not yet penetrated to the mother principle, that "governments are republican only in proportion as they embody the will of their people, and execute it." Hence, our first constitutions had really no leading principles in them. But experience and reflection have but more and more confirmed me in the particular importance of the equal representation then proposed. On that point, then, I am entirely in sentiment with your letters; and only lament that a copy-right of your pamphlet prevents their appearance in the newspapers, where alone they would be generally read, and produce general effect. The present vacancy too, of other matter, would give them place in every paper, and bring the question home to every man's conscience.

But ine******y of representation in both Houses of our legislature, is not the only republican heresy in this first essay of our revolutionary patriots at forming a constitution. For let it be agreed that a government is republican in proportion as every member composing it has his equal voice in the direction of its concerns (not indeed in person, which would be impracticable beyond the limits of a city, or small township, but) by representatives chosen by himself, and responsible to him at short periods, and let us bring to the test of this canon every branch of our constitution.

In the legislature, the House of Representatives is chosen by less than half the people, and not at all in proportion to those who do choose. The Senate are still more disproportionate, and for long terms of irresponsibility. In the Executive, the Governor is entirely independent of the choice of the people, and of their control; his Council equally so, and at best but a fifth wheel to a wagon. In the Judiciary, the judges of the highest courts are dependent on none but themselves. In England, where judges were named and removable at the will of an hereditary executive, from which branch most misrule was feared, and has flowed, it was a great point gained, by fixing them for life, to make them independent of that executive. But in a government founded on the public will, this principle operates in an opposite direction, and against that will. There, too, they were still removable on a concurrence of the executive and legislative branches. But we have made them independent of the nation itself. They are irremovable, but by their own body, for any depravities of conduct, and even by their own body for the imbecilities of dotage. The justices of the inferior courts are self-chosen, are for life, and perpetuate their own body in succession forever, so that a faction once possessing themselves of the bench of a county, can never be broken up, but hold their county in chains, forever indissoluble. Yet these justices are the real executive as well as judiciary, in all our minor and most ordinary concerns. They tax us at will; fill the office of sheriff, the most important of all the executive officers of the county; name nearly all our military leaders, which leaders, once named, are removable but by themselves. The juries, our judges of all fact, and of law when they choose it, are not selected by the people, nor amenable to them. They are chosen by an officer named by the court and executive. Chosen, did I say? Picked up by the sheriff from the loungings of the court yard, after everything respectable has retired from it. Where then is our republicanism to be found? Not in our constitution certainly, but merely in the spirit of our people. That would oblige even a despot to govern us republicanly. Owing to this spirit, and to nothing in the form of our constitution, all things have gone well. But this fact, so triumphantly misquoted by the enemies of reformation, is not the fruit of our constitution, but has prevailed in spite of it. Our functionaries have done well, because generally honest men. If any were not so, they feared to show it.

But it will be said, it is easier to find faults than to amend them. I do not think their amendment so difficult as is pretended. Only lay down true principles, and adhere to them inflexibly. Do not be frightened into their surrender by the alarms of the timid, or the croakings of wealth against the ascendency of the people. If experience be called for, appeal to that of our fifteen or twenty governments for forty years, and show me where the people have done half the mischief in these forty years, that a single despot would have done in a single year; or show half the r**ts and r*******ns, the crimes and the punishments, which have taken place in any single nation, under kingly government, during the same period. The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen, in his person and property, and in their management. Try by this, as a tally, every provision of our constitution, and see if it hangs directly on the will of the people. Reduce your legislature to a convenient number for full, but orderly discussion. Let every man who fights or pays, exercise his just and equal right in their e******n. Submit them to approbation or rejection at short intervals. Let the executive be chosen in the same way, and for the same term, by those whose agent he is to be; and leave no screen of a council behind which to skulk from responsibility. It has been thought that the people are not competent e*****rs of judges learned in the law. But I do not know that this is true, and, if doubtful, we should follow principle. In this, as in many other e******ns, they would be guided by reputation, which would not err oftener, perhaps, than the present mode of appointment. In one State of the Union, at least, it has long been tried, and with the most satisfactory success. The judges of Connecticut have been chosen by the people every six months, for nearly two centuries, and I believe there has hardly ever been an instance of change; so powerful is the curb of incessant responsibility. If prejudice, however, derived from a monarchical institution, is still to prevail against the vital elective principle of our own, and if the existing example among ourselves of periodical e******n of judges by the people be still mistrusted, let us at least not adopt the evil, and reject the good, of the English precedent; let us retain amovability on the concurrence of the executive and legislative branches, and nomination by the executive alone. Nomination to office is an executive function. To give it to the legislature, as we do, is a violation of the principle of the separation of powers. It swerves the members from correctness, by temptations to intrigue for office themselves, and to a corrupt barter of v**es; and destroys responsibility by dividing it among a multitude. By leaving nomination in its proper place, among executive functions, the principle of the distribution of power is preserved, and responsibility weighs with its heaviest force on a single head.

The organization of our county administrations may be thought more difficult. But follow principle, and the knot unties itself. Divide the counties into wards of such size as that every citizen can attend, when called on, and act in person. Ascribe to them the government of their wards in all things relating to themselves exclusively. A justice, chosen by themselves, in each, a constable, a military company, a patrol, a school, the care of their own poor, their own portion of the public roads, the choice of one or more jurors to serve in some court, and the delivery, within their own wards, of their own v**es for all elective officers of higher sphere, will relieve the county administration of nearly all its business, will have it better done, and by making every citizen an acting member of the government, and in the offices nearest and most interesting to him, will attach him by his strongest feelings to the independence of his country, and its republican constitution. The justices thus chosen by every ward, would constitute the county court, would do its judiciary business, direct roads and bridges, levy county and poor rates, and administer all the matters of common interest to the whole country. These wards, called townships in New England, are the vital principle of their governments, and have proved themselves the wisest invention ever devised by the wit of man for the perfect exercise of self-government, and for its preservation. We should thus marshal our government into, 1, the general federal republic, for all concerns foreign and federal; 2, that of the State, for what relates to our own citizens exclusively; 3, the county republics, for the duties and concerns of the county; and 4, the ward republics, for the small, and yet numerous and interesting concerns of the neighborhood; and in government, as well as in every other business of life, it is by division and subdivision of duties alone, that all matters, great and small, can be managed to perfection. And the whole is cemented by giving to every citizen, personally, a part in the administration of the public affairs.
Go to
Apr 14, 2017 19:42:36   #
ken hubert wrote:
Exactly. My quotes are from the writers themselves.


The founders well knew that the Frosty's of the world would arise again.

A few examples of what the founders thought

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful s***ery."
- 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

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I enclose you a list of the k**led, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to ens***e them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the m*****a? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"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 m*****a 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."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated m*****a, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of s***es."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A m*****a when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, B****stone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these t***hs, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a m*****a? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the m*****a, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"For it is a t***h, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"[I]f 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."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
Go to
Apr 14, 2017 19:29:42   #
ken hubert wrote:
Exactly. My quotes are from the writers themselves.


Yep,
The founders were clear and still people dispute it.....Especially professors that knows what is best for you.....
Both the federalist and anti federalist both thought gun ownership by private citizens was necessary.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 373 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.