My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

April 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

« Benefits vs. risks of gun ownership: Are firearms used often in self-defense? No | Main | Petrophobic Democrats: Let’s have a 100-year recession »

June 28, 2008


Dan Bidondi

Your more than welcome to come on my Radio Talk Show and debate me anytime.
I just hate when people call themselfs a Democrat or Republican and dare to call themselfs a Patriotic American.
GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD! "WE THE PEOPLE" will never give up our guns, will never give up our rights to this communist dictator Obama and his United Nations controlers..
Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama are nothing but globalist puppet scum! This country hasn't had a Constitutional President since JFK!
So yeah I would love for you to come on my show so I can teach you a thing or two about REAL Amerian history and I would blow you clear out of the water and then some about guns and the Founding Fathers.

Dan Bidondi

The Right To Bear Arms
Clearly states FIREARMS...
This is why people like you fail to read the WHOLE 2nd Amendment..
The right to form a well regulated militia and the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...
So let me ask you, a Militia is a group of citizens who are to defend the Republic from foreign or even a tyrannical Government.
So arms not being firearms, they are going to fight tyrannts with knives, or bats, or sticks.. No.......... The Founding Fathers made if very clear, I don't know how many times Jefferson and Washington spoke of Citizens and FIRE ARMS, FIRE ARMS, FIRE ARMS, FIRE ARMS, FIRE ARMS..
The 2nd Amendment is for the Citizens to be able to keep are bear GUNS!!
Stop trying to miss interpit the Constitution, you may fool the average person who knows jack about the Constitution, but ANYONE who knows real Amerian history knows its FIREARMS!!
What do you think the King Philip War was about? What do you think many battles and wars where about??? A tyrannical king or ruller trying to restrict the people from having fire arms.. Once again..
"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it" -Edmond Burke
"My People are destroyed by the lack of knowledge" -Josea


Dan Bidondi said, "First off Washington DID say that quote!"

Prove it! Good luck!

Frank Warner

Washington certainly did not say the words you "quote." That's been thoroughly researched.

I don't know about the Paine "quote" because you name no source document or its date. The same is true of Richard Henry Lee's "quote," which you say was uttered in 1788, a year after the Constitution was adopted. And when and where did Patrick Henry say the words you say he said?

Frank Warner

The Second Amendment does mention "arms," but not "firearms."


Protecting yourself with your fists would be armed, but not firearmed. The founding fathers made sure you could defend yourself no matter how you armed yourself.


In order to divine the intentions of the founding fathers, you'd have to look at supporting documentation from the time. If you take a look at several state constitutions created at a similar time as the US Constitution you'll find phrases that support a self-defense reasoning for keeping and bearing arms.

Both Pennsylvania and Vermont have this statement in their original constitutions: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state..." which explicitly calls out self-defense as a legitimate reason for ownership of arms. Ben Franklin is typically regarded as one of the "founding fathers" and was one of the drafters of the Pennsylvania constitution of 1776. The Vermont constitution of 1777 borrowed heavily from Pennsylvania's constitution.

Frank Warner

Finally, someone (Bob) has come up with a real reference to the use of "arms" for self-defense in a revolutionary-era document. The Pennsylvania Constitution of September 1776 does indeed protect the right to arms for defense of one's self and the state.

Still, it's interesting that, while the writers of the U.S. Constitution mention that arms could be needed for a militia, they didn't mention arms for self-defense.


I would actually argue that the reason they did not explicitly mention self-defense in the Constitution is because at that time self-defense (and the use of arms in self-defense) was a natural right beyond reproach.

Another blog I ran across while researching this has a pretty good breakdown of the historical background of the right of self-defense and the legal framework surrounding it.

Whether or not you agree with their ultimate conclusion (or some of the suppositions along the way), it is a fairly decent breakdown of the framework and it's supported by multiple reference from primary and secondary sources.

john b

During WWII the Japanese emperor wanted to attack the mainland of the USA, his Commander told him not to do it. He told the emperor if you attack the mainland there will be a gun behind every blade of grass. If it wasn't for the second amendment things might be a little different today.

Dave Vonschloss

As Justice Scalia said in his interview with Modern Times magazine a few months back, "If the Founding Fathers did not think the right for citizens to maintain private ownership of firearms was vital, the 2nd amendment would never have been included.
As for the manufactured quotes (on both sides of the debate) me, it's a sign of a desperate struggle. However, why should law abiding citizens have their rights infringed or truncated when it's a small percentage (the loons) who actually kill innocent people? Gun aren't roaming the streets killing people, nut jobs are...let's get the government to enforces the laws which are already on the books.

M Hench

Typical progressive liberal trying to rewrite history. I am sure you would love to do away with our Constitution and our REPUBLIC and replace it with a socialist 'Utopian' society.


He actually did say that. If you read books about him or about the CC of 1787 then you would know, but instead you are just an ignorant person who throws their opinion around like it actually means something.


liberty, all you need now is a reference to one of those books you claim to exist. Otherwise, you would simply be one of those people who throws their opinion around like it actually means something.


Video: If gun control worked, Chicago would be Mayberry

John Campbell

Just for the record, in case anyone wants to do the research, I seem to remember one of our founders making a written statement in a letter about taking a rifle with you as you go for a walk. He felt it was far better than playing games and did more for exercising the mind.

I suppose one could try to argue that merely carrying a firearm with you on a casual walk doesn't mean you're at liberty to defend yourself from any kind of an attack with it, but I'd love to see someone try to make such a case. I could use the laugh.

Believe it or not, the founders never laid out the proper way to dress yourself in the morning, but because they didn't put it to print doesn't mean that some things are not a normal part of ones daily function nor does it mean that such things are not considered rights.

Chuck Pelto

TO: Frank Warner
RE: Heh

Just because you've never seen it, doesn't mean he never said it.


[The Truth will out....]

Frank Warner

By that reasoning, Chuckle, we can quote Washington as endorsing monarchy in 1788. Just because you've never seen it ...


"I'd love to see one 'excellent legitimate' quote from a Founding Father saying citizens have a right to firearms for personal self-defense."

Even without a quotation, denials that the Second Amendment has either implicit or explicit application to self-defense are illogical, given the Founders' view that just governing power is only an extrapolation of individual power, making personal defense and national defense the same right in different magnitudes (which also gives at least a partial solution to the putative 2nd-Amendment problem with nuclear arms / WMDs: as such large-scale weapons cannot be used against individuals -- to say nothing of the difficulty of individually creating or deploying them -- but only against masses of individuals, so only collectives can legitimately "bear" them). And besides this, the Constitutional militia's purpose is at least as much to dismay and restrain non-consensual domestic government as it is to defend consensual domestic government.

Here, anyway, is your wish.


"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." (John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763, reprinted in The Works of John Adams 438 [Charles F. Adams ed., 1851])

"[T]he inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense ..." (John Adams, Legal Papers 242, 248 (1965) -- 1770 Boston Massacre trial)

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." (John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States, 475 [1787-1788])

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... 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." (Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764 -- fairly well circulated at the time)

"Be not afraid of the Pistols you have sent me. They may be necessary Implements of self Defense tho' I dare say I shall never have Occasion to use them ... It is a Satisfaction to have the means of Security at hand, if we are in no danger, as I never expect to be. Confide in my prudence and self regard for a proper use of them, and you need have no Apprehension." (James Iredell to Mother -- The Papers of James Iredell 79 (D. Higginbotham ed. 1976)

"It is the Right of every English Subject to be prepared with Weapons for his Defense." (NC delegation to Continental Congress, 1775 -- Hooper, Hewes & Caswell, To the Committees, North Carolina Gazette (Newbern), July 1775, at 2, col. 3.)

"William Henry Drayton, a prominent Revolutionary leader and Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court, 'always had about his person, a dirk and a pair of pocket pistols; for the defense of his life ...'" (J. Drayton, Memoirs of the American Revolution 378 (1821).)

"Up in Vermont, Ethan Allan and his friends 'never walked out without at least a case of pistols.' Lodging with a Quaker on one occasion, Ethan's brother Ira recalled, 'We took our pistols out of our holsters and carried them in with us. He looked at the pistols saying 'What doth thee do with these things?' He was answered 'Nothing amongst our friends,' but we were Green Mountain Boys, and ment [sic] to protect our persons and property...'" (Allen, Autobiography, in J. Wilbur, Ira Allen: Founder of Vermont 40, 44 (1928) (autobiography written in 1799).)


That such common-sense sentiments strike you as "gun-slingingly dopey" proves only how far you and other vilifiers have bounced and rolled from the Constitutional apple tree that grew you.

Free Patriot

I was skeptical of this quote, after coming across it on Facebook, hence why I'm here.

However, why are we referring to George Washington? While he was our first president, it was James Madison who framed the majority of the Constitution, as well as the second amendment specifically.

And James Madison said...
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Just in case people are still reading the Second Amendment with propaganda-glasses.


Years later I stumble across this intercourse, and, I might add, it is quite civil. I am impressed. There are a couple points that bear reiterating.

1) In the United States of America, we the people believe that our rights are granted by our maker - NOT GOVERNMENT, and therefore CANNOT be taken away. Any study of the FFs' views on natural law will enlighten you to the voracity of the 2A.

2) Our form of government was evolved from the study of 2000 previous years of various types of governments, including the Iroquois Confederacy... NOT MONARCHY... as such each man has equal say, equal value, and equal protection. As such, each man is considered innocent until proven guilty by due process and a court of law... therefore, any law based on "prevention" of harm is antithetical to our basis of justice. That is addressed by the term: "shall not be infringed"... an unconditional pronouncement of freedom.

3) John Adams DID, IN FACT state that personally owned arms would also serve as self-defense as a secondary role, if you actually seek the truth, you can and WILL go find it.



"Probably not. America isn't strongest because of firearms. It's strongest because it's free."

If its the strongest because of the freedom, how do you suppose the freedom is kept? Just saying that firearms tend to help in that manner. Many countries have proven that when firearms are taken from the populace, bad things follow.

Frank Warner

Our freedom is preserved because of our Constitution and the clever checks and balances that deny any one branch of government the power to erase basic human rights.

A free press helps preserve freedom. Free speech usually serves that same cause. Our independent courts and free opposition political parties do, too. Armed forces answerable to an elected government are essential, and the individual's right to bear arms has a role.

But most important is the Constitution itself, the full Constitution. It's the time-tested best foundation and framework for freedom.

The comments to this entry are closed.