....A Well-Regulated Militia.....

[woodchip]

Out of curiosity, back when it was legal to own a machine gun, how many school shootings using them occurred. How many mass murders?

[Will Robinson]

Mr. Obama also was overturning a 15-year-old ban on the Centers for Disease Control conducting research on gun violence. Officials said they reviewed the law and determined it only banned research intended to promote gun control, so they argued renewing fact-based research would not qualify.

So in his proposal for greater gun control he is overturning a ban on the CDC being used as a political tool for gun control politics?

In a related story, President Obama is being awarded the King of Blatant Arrogance crown.

[Will Robinson]

Has anyone been able to find a copy of the new New York State law? I read the claim that in the mental health provisions, the part where mental health care doctors and therapists can report you to be a threat which justifies seizing your weapons...etc., that some hard core anti gunners inserted wording into the legislation to include loss of the right to bear arms to any one 'who would declare a willingness to resorting to weapon violence in protecting their 2nd amendment rights'.

I hope they didn't try that but it sounds like something they would do. Effectively you have the right to bear arms precisely because you might need to use those arms to defend your rights from a tyrannical government. Like the one who would have you arrested for merely verbalizing a claim to have that right!

They already did the Ritalin trick where if you have been on psychiatric medicine you can forfeit your rights, coaching every school teacher and counselor to promote it... now if this is true about that law in New York all you have to do is say, hypothetically, you would stand up for your rights and you could lose them?!?

[callmeslick]

Will, here is a copy of the entire text. Can't say I've read the whole thing so no comment....merely replying to your request.

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2013/jan/1 ... tcommented
As for what Obama said today, do you really find anything that isn't reasonable? Seriously? As I posted on another board, the problem, politically for gun owners like yourself is this: Most of us, owners or not, out in the naton have ZERO problem with responsible, sensible gun owners owning guns. However, when those people fail to repudiate the loony fringe that calls for civil war, violent attack on Federal enforcement or the like, we, collectively step back and say, "hmmmm, maybe those folks aren't as responsible, or sensible, as we thought the were." And, therein lies the problem. By way of example, although I didn't watch the President(was tying my lethal, dangerous trout flies for the coming year), my Dad did. Now, Dad is 92, a Child of the South, from a long line of duck hunters. He owned his first pellet gun at age 5, went shotgunning for ducks by age 10(hmmmm, I wasn't allowed to do so until I was 14....) In other words, not a flaming liberal, not a rabid antigun type, Veteran(Navy) of WWII,longtime executive of a company that produces ammunition, among other products. Yet, his description of the Presidential presentation was succinct, "nothing that was said, proposed or done by Obama is in any way unreasonable. In fact, I agree with every single thing he mentioned." And that, my friends, is the sentiment from the type of citizen who will determine the long-term fate of gun ownership in this naton.

[callmeslick]

got real quiet in here today, didn't it? Hmmmm, maybe the earth did not stop spinning on its axis, and the President didn't overreach commonly accepted Presidential authority, and nobody got their guns or ammo taken away from them. Who'd have thought that?

[Top Gun]

Yeah, I read an article listing the main contents of the executive orders, and went, "...that's it?" Apparently greater information-sharing by government organizations is a massive boogeyman.

[callmeslick]

or not, leading to bunch of folks scratching their collective heads and wondering what on earth the NRA, Ted Nugent and Charlie Daniels were ranting about that was so scary. At any rate, I find it just hilarious to watch. There is this other forum, where CUDA also posts, where one poor old fella was all worked up over Obama. I asked him to specify what that was proposed or ordered he finds unreasonable. Silence ever since......

[Heretic]

Yet laws in Missouri didn't stop a convicted felon with a court order to take mental health medication from shooting a business school administrator. In Missouri and most other states convicted felons aren't allowed to possess a firearm.

http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Police-S ... 02071.html

[Burlyman]

A Well-Regulated Militia doesn't have the firepower or the personnel to fight the U.S. military. Game over.

[Will Robinson]

A Well-Regulated Militia doesn't have the firepower or the personnel to fight the U.S. military. Game over.

The U.S. Army has never been made up of men who had the lack of heart or morals to go house to house and kill their neighbors either.
A volunteer army with close ties to the civilian population is a good thing for us civilians.

So, as long as that is what it would take for a tyrannical leader to be able to put his boot on american necks, an armed civilian population makes a nice road block to any plan of that nature. An unarmed populace would be much easier to herd.

[CUDA]

i think you're all missing the point. I seriously doubt that the Military will be an issue. you would have rebellion and civil war on your hands. because the soldiers are citizens themselves. and many of them along with the leaders would defect and fight against each other. the potential danger to an unarmed citizen population would come from something along the lines of a Gestapo, or the Russian NKVD a radical NON-Military group that has Government backing. a group that while potentially better armed then the average citizen is not as well armed as regular army. they are more along the lines of a police force. that's where the danger lies.

[Burlyman]

People will do all kinds of foolish things when they think what they're doing is good.

[Will Robinson]

People will do all kinds of foolish things when they think what they're doing is good.

Try to come up with a scenario where the US Army's superior numbers and firepower are turned loose on a civilian America.
I think you will find it hard to come up with a plausible situation where that would happen.

Thanks to President HWBush there is one way since he managed to have the Posse Comitatus act revised.

The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.[6]

If we had an economic collapse that interrupted the food supply there would be civil unrest, rioting etc.
I could see a situation where the government wanted to relocate the hoards from the urban areas where the rioters would be killing each other over scraps and put them in FEMA camps.
That would take an army like effort.

Beyond that there will be no situation where the states and civilians stand by and simply watch a president start marching an army through the population. It would quickly become an insurgency battle on a scale never before realized in modern times and at that point all these weapons we civilians have become extremely useful.

[CUDA]

correct me if I'm wrong and I may be. are not the national guard under the jurisdiction of the state Governors. so each state has a military at their disposal to defend it's citizens

[callmeslick]

correct me if I'm wrong and I may be. are not the national guard under the jurisdiction of the state Governors. so each state has a military at their disposal to defend it's citizens

you are correct, as I understand it, although the Governors have, in practice, limited powers to deny a Federal request for assistance.
My other nitpick with you is over your use of tense in your previous post. You state that you don't think the military 'will' be a problem. Hopefully, this is more of an English usage thing, and you don't really think this whole scenario has a snowballs chance of ever taking place. Because, if you do, you are out of touch with the level of governmental support amongst the populace as a whole, and the long history of this nation. We've had one Civil War(well, technically two, although the Whiskey rebellion really didn't get too far), and that didn't work out well for those that started it. I suspect very few people would see anything, whatsoever, in the current reality that would justify an insurrection against the US government.

[flip]

One thing to consider is military grouping is often done according to disposition.

[Will Robinson]

For my part I don't think there is any way any president or other US leader in charge of US forces would ever try to use them to gain control. And because that wont happen I dont think any sizable group of citizens will ever rise up to overthrow the leadership.
Both of those factions have too much to lose in those scenarios to pursue such a course.

I don't have any plans to fight my government. I do make plans to survive their bad decisions...putting my property in numerous categories with hopes of seeing at least some of it grandfathered into a continued legal status etc.

I do entertain the premise of citizen vs army in debate when someone trys to assert that the 2nd amendments purpose is no longer legitimate due to the advancement of technology in US Army firepower. First, because they are incorrect in judging the value of a mans rifle in the likely scenarios where it could happen and secondly to explain that just because the 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee me victory in any scenario I certainly don't want to surrender the only form of defense against an armed attacker that I have. I'm much more likely to need it against a single thug than the Navy Seals.

I would never suggest anyone should forfeit any part of their 1st amendment rights simply because I don't think they have the ability to articulate a meaningful comment or that their attempts to communicate are inferior to the governments ability to communicate.
The same should be true for others who are considering the value of, or my need for, the 2nd amendment rights.

My weapons are primarily toys that can double as very effective self defense tools. Unless I pose a threat to you or the government there should be no discussion of my choices in this regard.
If my weapons are useless against your idea of any possible tyranny then so be it. If I face the scenario you envision then you have nothing to fear.
In the meantime they serve me well and neither they, nor I, are the source of the troubles we face today with violent law breakers.
I resent being scapegoated and having my freedoms reduced for politicians self promotion or even if they are sincerely wrong. Either way they are wrong.

[CUDA]

correct me if I'm wrong and I may be. are not the national guard under the jurisdiction of the state Governors. so each state has a military at their disposal to defend it's citizens

you are correct, as I understand it, although the Governors have, in practice, limited powers to deny a Federal request for assistance.
My other nitpick with you is over your use of tense in your previous post. You state that you don't think the military 'will' be a problem. Hopefully, this is more of an English usage thing, and you don't really think this whole scenario has a snowballs chance of ever taking place. Because, if you do, you are out of touch with the level of governmental support amongst the populace as a whole, and the long history of this nation. We've had one Civil War(well, technically two, although the Whiskey rebellion really didn't get too far), and that didn't work out well for those that started it. I suspect very few people would see anything, whatsoever, in the current reality that would justify an insurrection against the US government.

No I don't. I was interjecting into the scenario.

[Tunnelcat]

You can own it if you pay the tax and wait for th paperwork to clear. A 40mm launcher that mounts under the barrel of an AR 15 type rifle. No problem. An expensive hobby though.

You see, the same government that wants to outlaw 30 round magazines for semi auto's will let you have a fully automatic "machine gun" with grenade launcher if you like as long as you register it and pay the $200 tax per restricted item. $200 to own the full auto, $200 to own the launcher and $200 for each high explosive shaped charge projectile.

You can own grenades, sawed off shotguns, just about anything you want as long as the fed gets some tax money and your name on 'the list'.

The National Firearms Act of 1934
It comes from Bonnie and Clyde out gunning the FBI. Before then it was legal without restriction.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18732_6- ... na_p2.html

You know, I've finally figured out why it's mostly "Capitalism unhindered and take personal responsibility" Republicans who are the "Don't take away my guns" psychos. They know deep down that as they chip away at those evil social and entitlement programs they so loathe, most of society will begin to degrade into a thieving, murdering mass of humanity that needs to be kept at bay. So they really want their guns to use as a means to protect themselves and their future walled compounds just to keep out the dregs of what's left of society once they gotten done gutting and cutting any and all safety nets the government now offers, not the government itself.

The Guatemalan's have already started to build their "private cities", aka walled compounds, for the rich and well healed.

http://weburbanist.com/2013/01/14/utopi ... guatemala/

EDIT:

I found the real reason for requiring "Well Regulated Militias" and the ratification of the Second Amendment. White slave owners needed their guns just to keep their slaves under control.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/tho ... ve-slavery

[Sergeant Thorne]

Thanks for showing us what a liberal sounds like when they've completely parted company with reality, TC. Good luck finding your way back. I would suggest a hiatus from whatever source it hails from, and time spent with people who are faced with life on a day-to-day basis (no this is not everyone). I fail to see the value in putting Republican desires on the chopping block anyway, seeing as how the pro-gun views in this forum largely hail from a conservative, not a Republican perspective.

I suspect very few people would see anything, whatsoever, in the current reality that would justify an insurrection against the US government.

Really the only way I could see it happening is if a state or states exercised their rights and the Federal Government put the hammer down. I don't really see that happening. The other scenario would be the President declaring martial law in a situation or for a purpose that people deem to be over-reached or oppressive. That is more of a possibility now than it was 10 years ago or so.

To pose another scenario, what if progressives who don't wish to be restricted by constitutional government get their way ultimately and change the country to the point where conservatives decide that it's time to to secede, and the Federal Government won't have it? Sounds like a recipe for civil war, possibly. In my mind we might all be happier if both points of view got their way, and the country were divided in two. But there is a lot to think about there, and I haven't even scratched the surface of just what it would mean to split the United States up. I wonder what that would look like?

[Will Robinson]

...
I found the real reason for requiring "Well Regulated Militias" and the ratification of the Second Amendment. White slave owners needed their guns just to keep their slaves under control. ..

And now all they need to do to keep them in line is claim anything outside the plantation "is rascist". Like you just did.
No wonder you lefty's want to get rid of guns...you don't need them anymore! You have the 'new militia' called liberalism and your plantation is the Democrat Party.

I'll tell you what, you go ahead and get rid of yours, I'll keep mine since I don't have a militia or a plantation.

[woodchip]

You know, I've finally figured out why it's mostly "Capitalism unhindered and take personal responsibility" Republicans who are the "Don't take away my guns" psychos. They know deep down that as they chip away at those evil social and entitlement programs they so loathe, most of society will begin to degrade into a thieving, murdering mass of humanity that needs to be kept at bay. So they really want their guns to use as a means to protect themselves and their future walled compounds just to keep out the dregs of what's left of society once they gotten done gutting and cutting any and all safety nets the government now offers, not the government itself.


EDIT:

I found the real reason for requiring "Well Regulated Militias" and the ratification of the Second Amendment. White slave owners needed their guns just to keep their slaves under control.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/tho ... ve-slavery

Not to deflate your out of touch with reality ego TC but Rasmussen took a poll about the 2nd Amendment and:

"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of American Adults think the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny. Only 17% disagree, while another 18% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.) "

So contrary to comrade slick and the rest of you misguided leftist/commie sociopaths people don't look at the 2nd amendment as something that only allows them to buy firearms, they view it as a anti tyranny amendment. So despite slicks trying to make you think we should only be limited to single shot rifles as that would fulfill anyone's need to own a firearm, 2/3's of this nation thinks otherwise. And as a anti-tyranny platform, the 2nd amendment doesn't limit us to muskets no more than the first amendment limits us to news print and pamphlets. We are indeed granted the right to own firearms that are as useful as the musket was in colonial times. If American citizens were allowed to own military grade rifles back then, they should also be able to own them today (note-I said rifles, not tanks or nukes)

[callmeslick]

in another recent poll, less than 42% of the nation realized that Roe v Wade dealt with abortion, so let's never underestimate the ignorance of the American public, especially in terms of civic awareness.

Other polls to ponder--92% of all Americans support universal background check for all gun sales
83% support limits on capacity of magazines for sale
75% support background check for ammunition purchase
slightly less than 60% support both assault weapon ban reinstatement and national registration system

all, polls, polls and more polls!!

[woodchip]

and who took those polls? links

[CUDA]

and 80% of all statistics are made up on the spot

[callmeslick]

out yesterday. I think CNNs polling. Except that the Roe v Wade thing was over a month back and was Gallup, iirc. Too busy packing to find the links, but I think you can. If not located by Tuesday when I return, and if anyone really cares, I'll locate them

[flip]

For those who think the Federal Government is the supreme law of the land.

In the aftermath of the recent criminal events, the President, Vice-President and many members of Congress are attempting to exploit the deaths of innocent victims by attempting to enact laws, restrictions; and, even through use of Executive Order, prevent law-abiding American citizens from possessing certain firearms and ammunition magazines.

As the duly-elected Sheriff of Cherokee County, I want you to know and understand my position on this issue. I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. In Georgia, as in most states, Sheriffs are elected Constitutional officers. Duly elected Sheriffs are held accountable by no one other than the electorate of their respective counties. There is only one exception, in those extreme emergencies during which the Governor of the State of Georgia issues a written declaration of emergency.

With this in mind, no one other than the governor in a declared state of emergency can tell the County Sheriff what to do or command their deputies and personnel into action. We are empowered to enforce all STATE laws and have NO authority or duty to enforce any federal law or mandate. The President and/or any other federal official has NO authority to order the County Sheriff to do anything. This interpretation is not new. It has been the law of the land since these United States of America came into existence.

On December 27, 2012 my oath of office was administered by our Probate Judge, with the final sentence stating, “. . . and that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of this State, so help me God.”

Therefore, I will fully exercise the power of the Office of Sheriff to protect and defend the Constitutional rights of the citizens of Cherokee County. My position is best stated by fellow Sheriff Tim Muller of Linn County, Oregon in his letter to the President. “We are Americans. We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws”.

Along with Sheriff Muller, other Sheriffs throughout the country (including Georgia) and I, will not enforce any laws or regulations that negate the Constitutional rights of the citizens of Cherokee County. Nor shall those laws and regulations be enforced by me or by my deputies, nor will I permit the enforcement of any unconstitutional regulations or orders by federal officers within the borders of Cherokee County, Georgia.

Sheriff Roger Garrison

[callmeslick]

the article fails to state what qualifications the sheriffs have to interpret Constitutional law, nor where they have the right to refuse to enforce Federal Law.
It will be suck to be them when push comes to shove on that matter........

[flip]

Lol, you need to get out more Slick.

EDIT: Let me put it a different way Slick. The first ban on assault weapons was pushed through on a different generation. They were arrogant. Now they actually feel threatened.

EDIT: In fact, I don't even think Obama is stupid enough to think or even wants weapons bans. All of his executive orders made perfect sense to me. He did 2 things with these orders, went in the right direction and gave his self an out in the event of another tragedy. I myself watched the Obama movie. Unlike alot of people, I watched it with an open mind and without preconceived notions. Obama is not one of the bad guys. He knows exactly what it means to be restricted, he's just smart enough not to alienate himself. You and Piers need to settle down a bit

In other words, I think Obama has freedom fighters blood and is for the little guy. He is just smart about how he does it.

[Sergeant Thorne]

the article fails to state what qualifications the sheriffs have to interpret Constitutional law, nor where they have the right to refuse to enforce Federal Law.
It will be suck to be them when push comes to shove on that matter........

You failed to state how he supposedly has no right to do either, slickster.

[woodchip]

the article fails to state what qualifications the sheriffs have to interpret Constitutional law, nor where they have the right to refuse to enforce Federal Law.

Same way Obama told ICE not to enforce certain federal immigration laws...

[flip]

Obama is just following certain directives from the CFR though as far as immigration is concerned. I've done a great deal of reading of CFR articles, and all of them for the most part have agreed to soft borders between Mexico and Canada. I've got mixed feelings on it really, because I personally felt the effects of it, but I also see the broader picture. In the grand scheme of things, it unifies North America, a good thing considering how wacky Europe and the East have tended over history. That is foreign policy that was in place before Obama even took office.

[Will Robinson]

Obama is just following certain directives from the CFR though as far as immigration is concerned. I've done a great deal of reading of CFR articles, and all of them for the most part have agreed to soft borders between Mexico and Canada. I've got mixed feelings on it really, because I personally felt the effects of it, but I also see the broader picture. In the grand scheme of things, it unifies North America, a good thing considering how wacky Europe and the East have tended over history. That is foreign policy that was in place before Obama even took office.

Yea, I'm with you there. I think we should build that fence but keep the gate open. I don't mind people coming across, I just want to get a look at their papers when they cross, maybe have some kind of biometric ID and cooperation from Mexico to issue up to date papers.

I lived in El Paso Texas for a long time, worked in a cabinet shop where I was the only gringo in the place and there was only one other U.S. citizen there besides the boss. 20+ illegals in there working at least. We need to get them all documented and taxed etc so they stop turning our hospitals into their own free medical clinics though. The impact of illegals in border areas is bad on facilities like that and bad for ranchers and home owners living in crossing areas. Build the fence and prop open the gate. It worked for the last 150 years just fine.

It will make the drug smugglers carry the ★■◆● themselves too, instead of them linking a way across in exchange for carrying their drugs for them. And no more truck loads of people left to die locked in the back...

[flip]

Agreed. That's why I advocate amnesty for those here now. Make them law-abiding American citizen's and let the police eventually round up the malignant. It's the only way I see to stop the debate in it's track and move forward with a solution.

[Tunnelcat]

Thanks for showing us what a liberal sounds like when they've completely parted company with reality, TC. Good luck finding your way back. I would suggest a hiatus from whatever source it hails from, and time spent with people who are faced with life on a day-to-day basis (no this is not everyone). I fail to see the value in putting Republican desires on the chopping block anyway, seeing as how the pro-gun views in this forum largely hail from a conservative, not a Republican perspective.

Think so heh? What do you think will happen to society as all the social safety nets and health care support disappears under the Republican guise of making people take personal responsibility for their lives and we get more and more desperate poor people in this country? I'm thinking that taking personal responsibility would mean to most starving homeless and jobless people to start stealing from those WHO HAVE to survive.

And now all they need to do to keep them in line is claim anything outside the plantation "is rascist". Like you just did.
No wonder you lefty's want to get rid of guns...you don't need them anymore! You have the 'new militia' called liberalism and your plantation is the Democrat Party.

I'll tell you what, you go ahead and get rid of yours, I'll keep mine since I don't have a militia or a plantation.

Typical. I wasn't pointing out the racism. That does seem to be on your mind a lot. I was pointing out A probable reason that the Founding Fathers put the "Well regulated militia" as a Second Amendment in the Constitution. Reasons for things being done the way they were DO tend to get lost in history. Don't forget, many of the Founding Fathers WERE slave owners, and they probably worried about slave uprisings. You know humans. They don't take to being used as tools forever and those slaves might just become a problem for their owners if they got it in their heads to rebel. I can just hear the discussion back then. It probably went something like this: "We better make sure all slave owners are well armed in the event of a violent insurrection". This reason makes far more historical sense than the Founding Fathers fearing their own newly formed nascent government becoming tyrannical in the future.

[Will Robinson]

...

Typical. I wasn't pointing out the racism. That does seem to be on your mind a lot.

It's hard to not think about it when so many hacks and fools run around shouting 'that's rascist' at every opportunity to sway public opinion their way!!

... I was pointing out A probable reason that the Founding Fathers put the "Well regulated militia" as a Second Amendment in the Constitution. Reasons for things being done the way they were DO tend to get lost in history. Don't forget, many of the Founding Fathers WERE slave owners, and they probably worried about slave uprisings. You know humans. They don't take to being used as tools forever and those slaves might just become a problem for their owners if they got it in their heads to rebel. I can just hear the discussion back then. It probably went something like this: "We better make sure all slave owners are well armed in the event of a violent insurrection". This reason makes far more historical sense than the Founding Fathers fearing their own newly formed nascent government becoming tyrannical in the future.

You are really pathetic sometimes! 'You can just hear the discussion"?!?

I have news for you. Back when the discussion took place there were no cell phones or other means of communications so the discussion, the real discussion they had, is actually well preserved for you to read!! They had to send letters back and forth to each other and they chronicled all sorts of minutia of the process in journals and editorials.

So quit projecting and stereotyping based on your own biases to create a false narrative and go read the actual discussion that took place.
Search for Madison....federalist papers....etc.
It was quite a hot topic for them because they were at a major cross roads with how to limit the federal government. Many felt that letting the federal government keep a standing army during peacetime was a mistake, coming from a class system in England where tyrants hid behind "royalty" it was no stretch of the imagination to fear a president could quickly become the King of America. It was Madison's reassurances to his peers in those discussions that the free men of america would always outnumber the army and if those free men were allowed to keep and bear their own arms, ie; be 'well regulated' (as in 'well equipped' as the word was used in that era, not 'well controlled' by government as the word is used today) then the free people would be safe from a tyrannical government.

"The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. 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".

Of course they would use guns to keep slaves in line just like they must have thought they would use guns for everything they were using guns for in that time! They would have no reason to think any of those practices would stop just because they won independence from the King and were forming a new government. The 2nd amendment wasn't about changing the way they used guns, it wasn't about establishing the right to use guns! It was about declaring they have the right above and beyond anything the new government might have to say about it! It was to ensure the preservation of a right they already had by the grace of god, not by the decree of government.

There were plenty of people on both sides of the slavery debate at that time and their would have been no ratification of the Constitution if an abolishment of slavery was put in and the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with it.
They weren't abandoning their lifestyle to form some kind of utopia! They were merely replacing their former government with one of their own design. Of course they were going to use guns for everything they had been using them for before the document was written!

It is so predictable and despicable the way you leftys use the race card.
Keep it up though because you have just about worn it out. The boy who cried wolf, remember that story?
OMG!! did I dare use the word boy in a rant about slavery and racism? Hell yes I did. On behalf of sane people everywhere I'm taking that word back! Deal with it!

[woodchip]

TC why don't you look up why licensing to carry a handgun came about (hint it was not a way to keep firearms out of the hands of mass shooters/mentally ill/criminals)

[CUDA]

Will beat me to it. Good post factual and correct.

[Heretic]

So does any one of you think it's ok for this:

571.099.
1. Any parent or guardian of a child who attends a
2 public, private, or charter school shall notify, in writing, the
3 superintendent of the school district, or the governing body of a private
4 school or charter school, that such parent or guardian owns a firearm
5 within thirty calendar days of:
6 (1) Enrolling his or her child in a school district, a private
7 school, or a charter school; or
8 (2) Purchasing a firearm, or otherwise receiving a firearm in a
9 transfer of ownership.
10 2. The notification shall specify the names of the parent or
11 guardian and any child or children who attend the school district or
12 school and the fact that the parent or guardian owns a firearm. The
13 notification does not need to specify the type of firearm or the number
14 of firearms owned by the parent or guardian.
15 3. If the parent enrolling the child does not own a firearm, but
16 another parent residing in the home with the child or who shares
17 custody of the child does own a firearm, then the parent who owns the
18 firearm is required to send the written notification. If the parent or
19 guardian has multiple children who attend the same school district or
20 private or charter school, such parent or guardian only needs to send
21 one written notification so long as the notification includes the name
22 of each child who attends the school or any school in the
23 district. Whenever the parent or guardian enrolls a subsequent child
24 in the district or school, the parent or guardian shall send an updated
25 written notification that includes the name of the new child or
26 children. A parent or guardian who has already sent a written
27 notification pursuant to this section who purchases or receives a new
28 firearm shall not be required to send an additional notification.
29 4. Failure to notify a school district or school of firearm
30 ownership under this section shall be an infraction, punishable by a
31 fine of up to one hundred dollars

http://www.senate.mo.gov/13info/pdf-bil ... /SB124.pdf

[woodchip]

Well it would be ok if I saw the same requirement for alcohol in the home, or if one or both parents were convicted of a sex crime, or if any drugs were owned by a parent....I think you get the picture