8 votes

What Would the Founding Fathers Think About AK-47s?

This is what we are up against from the progressive "history illiterate".

------------------------------------------------------------

Moms are buzzing today about an opinion piece on gun control that was posted on the Scary Mommy website. http://www.scarymommy.com/

In it, blogger Kiran writes:

[Our Founding Fathers] never imagined gang wars. They never saw the technology that could create guns that could kill so many people so quickly. They never saw an AK-47 blow someone’s head off. They never imagined the number of civilian deaths that would take place and grow each year on American soil.

I will tell you one thing. They never imagined Columbine. They never imagined Newtown.

We posted a link to the piece it on our Moms Matter Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/momsmatter2012 and got lots of impassioned responses. Check out a few of them after the jump, and leave your own thoughts in the comments.

Kiran makes the point that she believes gun owners should have to be registered just as drivers are registered and licensed in our country. She says that the argument that criminals won't register for guns anyway is no more valid than the argument that no one should have to have a license to drive because criminals won't get driver's licenses.

Our Facebook readers' reactions to Kiran's post were across the board.
https://www.facebook.com/momsmatter2012

Here are just a few:

Does she really believe that our founding fathers never saw brutal murder and didn't know history? Mass murder and evil is nothing new. The Founders didn't know we'd need the First Amendment for TV, music, pornography, email, computers, but they sure got that right. --Jessica

I personally don't like guns, but don't mind if other sane people want to have their guns for protection and hunting. BUT I don't think anyone needs a gun that hold so many bullets. --Karen

You cannot punish the innocent for other's reckless behavior. That's like taking my car away because my neighbor drives drunk in hers. Useless & stupid. Mental illness needs to be addressed more & laws re that need to change. --Theresa

No one said take away the guns. I don't understand why all these people that hate liberals think that. All we're saying is let's up the enforcement of our current laws if you want to go to a gun show and buy off the rack get a license for it! --Amy

------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow the ignorance for fascist control for totalitarianism....

Unbelievable




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

FIRST

an AK 47 would not blow up a persons head, although a cannon which was legal for a person to own then, could, and did.

I would think that the founding fathers would be thinking Thirty rounds thats awesome! can we make it fifty? And I would like a tank. And could you please tell me more about this sniping thing, sounds very efficient.

They'd think we should have

They'd think we should have weaponry equal to that of the military and would probably be questioning, and protesting, that they had to pay an exorbitant tax and get a background check to get a fully automatic weapon as was their God given right. I expect they'd have been interested in procuring a few tanks while they were at it as well as other modern weaponry, since the 2nd amendment was to ensure that we had equal weaponry with the military to deter tyranny.

Blessings )o(

Multiple barrel guns..

..like the harmonica gun and the volley gun were available in the 1700's. The 10 shot harmonica gun came in the 1820's.

To me, a revolver like this firing 12 shots in under 3 seconds including a reload is right up there with a semi-automatic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

They would be interested to make sure the common man had...

...access to the most advanced weapons.

Period.

.

They had cannon's

pistols, muskets, and black powder explosives. None of these are listed in the 2nd amendment. They most likely took advancement in weapon technology into consideration when writing it.

Its always cute

to hear people who don't know anything about guns scaremonger about them. You would think an AK-47 could shoot through a locomotive engine block from this lady's post.

Imagine their surprise upon finding out that a 1898 bolt action can "penetrate body armor".

Can you imagine the wound from a 75 caliber soft lead "expanding" musket ball?

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.

http://shadesofthomaspaine.blogexec.com

Also author of Stick it to the Man!

http://www.amazon.com/Stick-Man-Richard-Moyer/dp/1484036417

packs a nice punch

i wish it was a little more accurate further out.

Patrick Henry

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

"You Mean I Can Shoot 30 Tyrants...

between reloads?"

What the Founding Fathers would think if they saw an AK-47

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

Good one

I see meme potential with that!

SWEET!

What the Founding Fathers would think if they saw an AK-47.

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

"But if they have these things...

....then why haven't they overthrown THEM?"

The second thing the Founding Fathers would think if they could see an AK-47

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

They'd love 'em!

Thirty rounds, one shot per trigger pull, and far more accurate than a musket? Yes, please!

Actually, Jefferson would probably geek out over them, seeing as he was a bit of a gun nut himself.

Also, as others have pointed out, they had CANNONS. That could be loaded with GRAPESHOT.

Think of a shotgun loaded with buckshot. Now increase the bore size five times over. Now multiply the number of pellets by twenty, and make them bigger.

Yeah. I don't think a Kalashnikov would horrify them.

They'd love 'em!

Thirty rounds, one shot per trigger pull, and far more accurate than a musket? Yes, please!

Actually, Jefferson would probably geek out over them, seeing as he was a bit of a gun nut himself.

Also, as others have pointed out, they had CANNONS. That could be loaded with GRAPESHOT.

Think of a shotgun loaded with buckshot. Now increase the bore size five times over. Now multiply the number of pellets by twenty, and make them bigger.

Yeah. I don't think a Kalashnikov would horrify them.

The founders would be just fine with 'em.

Imagine for a second that the jungles of Viet Nam are the forests of N. America. Imagine that we are the Viet Cong. Now, imagine what would have happened if the Viet Cong didn't have their AKs. But they did and through strength in numbers, which we also have, they defeated a more advanced, better trained enemy. THAT's why we need assault rifles ... because one day WE might draw the ire of Uncle Sam.

The founders "gave" us the Second Amendment not for hunting or even for protection against another guy or burglar (those rights are so obvious that they probably wouldn't even have put the right to bear arms in the BoR if that's all it was about), but for protection against tyranny. This isn't guesswork, it's fact. They wrote/spoke on the topic. It's there for all to read.

I mean, do these people really think the founders used the number 2 spot on the BoR to remind us that we have the right to eat or protect our homes? That'd be like using the number 1 spot for "Congress shall make no law that would deprive people of air. The people shall breathe as much air as they need at all times. Well, lest they be dead. :-P"

Yes, the founders used smiley code.

Work for pay, pay for freedom
Fuck 'em all, we don't need 'em

Private citizens owned

Private citizens owned cannons in the time of our Founders. Cannons are more powerful than AK-47s.

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Thomas Jefferson. A vote for Rand Paul is a vote for James Madison.

They would have thought...

..."Damn, we could've beat the British a lot quicker with these!"

They Would Be Appalled

by EVERYTHING nowadays. Guns would be just one of many things that would floor them. IMO.

skippy

I have

An old musket. I would prefer not to be shot with it instead of a modern "assault rifle." That old musket would literally decapitate someone if it made contact. Ugh. Just speaking from logic.

The founding fathers

Would approve of any and all weaponry that would be capable of defending ourselves from our own government.

The Founding Fathers

had cannons that could blow people's heads off, and anybody could own one.

Your papers Pleeeese

Its scary to listen to the herd. I don't understand the arguement for licensing. How does that make guns any safer, same with cars. Having a driver's license does not make you a better driver. It is one more step to control us and make sure we have to answer to the State. It is like our borders being totally open yet we have to go through "security" at airports. It is just more conditioning. MOOOOOO

I doubt she knows the first thing

about the Founding Fathers.. I love it when these liberals pieces of shit invoke the Constitution and use kids to get their political agendas pushed.. They should be shot......out of a cannon towards North Korea.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.