The Second Amendment

Guns

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

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.

There is one irrefutable fact, supported by contemporary writings of a number of the Founders: the 2nd amendment was written to enable the individual people of this nation, as a last resort, to overthrow a tyrannical government. Self-protection, hunting and shooting were well received by-products; however the original intent has never changed. The Founders themselves armed for war with smooth bore muskets, which at four shots per minute, were the commonly issued assault rifles of their day.

Contemporary rifled bore flintlock rifles, while having more far range in the hands of elite marksman only fired one shot per minute, and some took far longer to load. Hand grenades had been in military use in the United Kingdom as early as the Battle of Holt Bridge in 1643, and had been in widespread use for 100 years. Artillery, from swivel guns to cannon, howitzers, and mortars, were in common use and owed by private citizens and communities.

Warships, the most powerful weapons of the day, were often privately owned; in fact, the eight frigates of the Continental Navy performed pitifully, and were all sunk by 1781. The only real naval successes enjoyed by the rebellious Americans were from privateers, who made the best of the 1,697 letters of marque issued by Congress. (1)

This posting will cover the original intent of the second amendment as well as an introduction to a few of the many legislative attempts to place limitations on it. This document relies on vetted on-line information, books, and other available materials from institutes of higher education. Credit will be given to the best of the ability of this writer. Spelling will contain the spelling of the time of publication. I can only hope this post can lead to further discussion of the subject matter.

In order to gain a beginning to the meaning of the amendment as written, and dismiss one of the most egregious errors often repeated, we will start with a grammatical look at the actual terminology and the arguments within. The following comes from George Mason University, School of Law and in particular Nelson Lund, Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment (2).

The one-sentence Second Amendment contains three commas, the first and last of which are not in dispute. The second comma, however, has given rise to an argument over the meaning of the clause that precedes it relative to the remainder of the sentence.

To those who view the opening clause as absolute, the Second Amendment is really about the right of militias, rather than individuals, to bear arms. That interpretation would save the D.C. gun ban and limit the force of the Second Amendment.

Nelson Lund, Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment, disagrees with that interpretation, saying the militia portion of the sentence “is grammatically independent of the rest of the sentence.” In his view, “The Second Amendment has exactly the same meaning that it would have had if the preamble had been omitted.” Those following Lund’s reasoning would conclude that the Second Amendment protected an individual’s right to bear arms.

The US Supreme Court decided in 2008, Columbia v. Heller (Federal) and in 2010 with McDonald v. Chicago (States) with the view of Professor Lund on the side of the 2nd Amendment and the individual’s right to bear arms. The SCOTUS recognized in the Heller decision that just as television journalism is protected by the 1st Amendment, while only print journalism was known by the Founders, so are modern weapons protected by the 2nd.

Even if you still doubt of the scholar, or the Supreme Court, next I will present the law in codification that names everyone, with very few limitations, as ‘the Militia’ that many here will denounce and despise—it is us. Officially, the “National Guard and the Naval Militia” are one part of our Republic’s militia, formally identified in 10 USC § 311 (b) (1) as the “organized militia.” You and I, and others who are the too old, too young, or too female (not so much today) who are not formally part of the National Guard or Naval Militia or on active duty military, are codified in 10 USC § 311 (b) (2) as the “unorganized militia.”

The “Organized Militia” at the time of the revolution was the immortal “Minutemen” who were aided by the “Unorganized Militia” of the young, old and women alike. The beginning of the US regular forces was born in this time period which was known as the Continental Marines (10 November 1775) and better known today as the United States Marine Corps. This leaves us with the regular military, the organized, and the unorganized militias.

Today we call them the US Military (regulars & reserves) now including the Coast Guard, the organized militia–the National Guard, and the unorganized—the rest of us. This is codified in law. Just like Sweden, our population is expected to be fully armed with the same weapons of the current militarily; however, unlike Sweden–the government will not pay, nor arm your household; it is expected of each of us be fully armed of our own accord.

The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
-Thomas Jefferson

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.
-George Washington

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

Even though this should be a simple and straightforward amendment—it is worth noting that the first five amendments are all God given (Endowed by the Creator) and cannot be revoked by man. An additional note is the 2nd amendment is the one that that protects all of the other amendments and should be easily understood. Many in the community constantly misrepresent and construe this amendment to their wishes. One last quote should help clear that up. Tenche Coxe, Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress twice explained the purpose of the Second Amendment to his fellow citizens, first writing in The Pennsylvania Gazette, on Feb. 20, 1788.

“The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

Coxe was explicit: the Founders held that the militia was the people, and that Congress had no power to disarm the people. Further he defined that the citizens of this Republic should have military arms, as checks and balances against over-reach by both state and local powers.

As a bit of history towards those folks that still believe that “Taxation without Representation” is more than a slogan for the license plates on Obama’s limousine (3) but also was the cause of the First American revolution. This may just be a shock because the “shot heard round the world”, “don’t fire till you see the whites of their eyes”, and other well-known phases were from our forefathers which were fighting against the confiscation of powder and shot, cannon, and community food stores—that is what started the First American Revolution.

Let us look into the incursions and restrictions that are in effect “feel good” measures against the Second Amendment. According to the latest available information–there were currently 243 pages of federal gun laws (4) , and 480 pages of state gun laws (5) in effect. I could go into to CDC studies and elsewhere but this would be to no avail to those that have closed their minds already.

“Shall not be infringed” has been infringed to some extent or another since 1934 in the name of “Public Safety”, “Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act”, or many other innocuous sounding names that are all restrictions of one sort or another. Please try to remember that the ultimate goal of the 2nd amendment is to defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic with the last resort being a means to overthrow a tyrannous government and not one of skeet shooting nor killing Bambi or Thumper for dinner.

From NFA ’34, to GCA ’68, to FOPA ’86, and the ’94 Crime Bill as just a couple of examples, the federal government has chipped away at the rights of gun owners in the name of “public safety.” Every one of these has restricted law abiding citizens while doing nothing but present “feel good” crap for the general population, and a basic zero effect to curb those, known as criminals, who do not follow the law.

There is no such idea of an “assault” weapon (closest is a selector switch multi-fire) available in the US for sale to the general public since 1934. Legally-owned assault rifles have never been used to commit murder in the United States. During the gang wars of the 1920s and early 1930s, bloody gangland shootouts inspired the National Firearms Act of 1934, to impose a tax (and substantial controls) over the sale of automatic weapons and destructive devices. It has been incredibly effective in removing legally-purchased firearms from the criminal element of society. Since that time, there has been only one confirmed and one possible murder with legally-acquired automatic weapons, and that one confirmed murder was when a corrupt police officer used his department-issued M-11 submachine pistol to murder an informant.

The first “assault rifle”, the German Sturmgewehr 44 (StG 44) wasn’t invented for another ten years after the NFA was passed. No assault rifles have been made for public purchase in 27 years. In 1986, Congress passed the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act–one provision of that act was the so-called Hughes Amendment. (6) I will admit that if you have over $15,000 dollars for application fees (non-refundable), can withstand a six-month plus investigation, and are approved as a class III firearms licensee—you can purchase one, if you can afford the cost on the limited basis (prior to 1986) availability, with an expected minimum of $5,000 USD for the “cheapest” multi-fire available.

In light of recent events, there can be no better time than the present to have a detailed and comprehensive discussion about the one freedom that is the final and ultimate guarantee of all other freedoms. Nevertheless, everyone has an opinion on restrictions to getting firearms and most of us will not disagree with restrictions put into place about availability of certain weapon types or the people that can purchase them prior to this latest power grab by President Obama, among others like Senator Diane “Good for me but not thee” Feinstein.

Honestly, if President Obama was half-truthful about Federal Gun laws he should start with the greatest “straw man” purchaser and gun trafficker to date—his Attorney General Eric Holder. However, I will leave this open to discussion in the comments but will leave you with a couple of statements left to us not by our founders but of those who some of the Liberals / Progressives both in and out of power idolize. One by the original “Bite Me” Joe—Joseph Stalin who said ““If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.” Or the Christmas Winter tree ornament (within the White House) believer of Mao (Mao Tze Tung) who stated “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”

America will never be disarmed as much as the resident Liberals and Progressives wish. Tread Lightly. Commence discussion.

References

(1) Owens, Bob, 2013, “Forget bans; where are my Constitutionally-protected suppressed machine guns?”, retrieved in part from: http://www.bob-owens.com/2013/01/forget-bans-where-are-my-constitutionally-protected-suppressed-machine-guns/#more-2671

(2) Lund, Nelson, 2007, “Much Ado About Commas: Lund on Second Amendment Grammar Debate”, George Mason, School of Law, Nelson Lund, Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment retrieved from http://www.law.gmu.edu/news/2007/859

(3) Blaze.com, 2013, President Obama Will Make a Political Statement With New License Plates on His Limo, retrieved from http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/15/president-obama-will-make-a-political-statement-with-designer-license-plates-on-his-limo/

(4) http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-5/atf-p-5300-5.pdf

(5) http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws.aspx

(6) Owens, Bob, 2013, “Assault rifles have been banned for 27 years. So why are politicians and the media lying to you?”. Retrieved in part from http://www.bob-owens.com/2013/01/assault-rifles-have-been-banned-for-27-years-so-why-are-politicians-and-the-media-lying-to-you/#more-2723

About these ads

66 thoughts on “The Second Amendment

  1. GMB

    These men discussed the issue at length. Their words stand better than mine.

    Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
    safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly’s reply to
    the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

    Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither
    inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
    better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
    may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T.
    Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

    John Adams: “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
    defense.” (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

    George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
    people’s liberty teeth (and) keystone… the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable… more than
    99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
    atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
    we need them every hour.” (Address to 1st session of Congress)

    George Mason: “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” (3 Elliot,
    Debates at 380)

    Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
    almost every country in Europe.” (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

    George Washington: “A free people ought to be armed.” (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
    Chronicle.)

    Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (T. Jefferson papers,
    334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

    James Madison: “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of
    other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms.” (Federalist Paper #46)

    History had to be revised by a progressive controlled educational system for these facts to be so ignored and watered down as to advance the notion the founding fathers found both insane and insulting, reasonable regulation and public safety.

  2. Retired Spook

    After the Revolution, Tench Coxe formed the international merchant firm of Coxe and Frazier, and one of the many commodities the company dealt in was arms, so I can see why he thought everyone should have every conceivable type of weapons. I don’t believe that was the prevailing view at the time. “Arms” in the sense that it was used in the 2nd Amendment was largely accepted at the time as weapons that could be carried on one’s person. In the late 18th and early 19th century that didn’t preclude a member of the organized militia from keeping and maintaining larger weapons used during times of conflict, such as field artillery, morters, etc., but I don’t believe anyone ever intended all free men to keep and maintain such weapons. Today such weapons are the purview of state National Guard and Army and Marine Reserve units.

    I’ve heard the argument that the modern firearms (many of which the Left would like to ban) that the average individual is “allowed” to possess are no match for the firepower of the U.S. military, and, as such, would be useless in overthrowing a tyrannical government. That argument assumes that the U.S. military would side with a tyrannical government, and I don’t think that’s a given. I believe the vast majority of present and former members of the military take their constitutional oath much more seriously than does the average politician.

    1. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock)

      I’ve heard the argument that the modern firearms (many of which the Left would like to ban) that the average individual is “allowed” to possess are no match for the firepower of the U.S. military, and, as such, would be useless in overthrowing a tyrannical government. That argument assumes that the U.S. military would side with a tyrannical government, and I don’t think that’s a given.

      That also assumes that the next revolution will be ordinary, armed citizens marching on Washington in a mass attempt to overthrow the government. I don’t know anyone who sees it happening that way.

    2. dbschmidt

      Spook,

      Here I have to agree with you in a lot of respects as to what constitutes “arms” for the general population. I have no real issues with the requirement of being a class III licensee to own a machine gun, or a cannon for that matter but as the slippery slope goes—look no further than New York, who in all the rush to “save the childrens” and be a beacon of Progressive values dropped the maximum rounds per magazine from ten to seven (while wanting five) knowing full well that seven rounds would make almost every semi-automatic pistol illegal. That was their real motive; nevertheless, in their hast they forgot to exclude their own police and the Olympic athletes. BTW, did not do a damn thing to save anyone including the children—it will cost lives.

      1. Retired Spook

        dropped the maximum rounds per magazine from ten to seven (while wanting five) knowing full well that seven rounds would make almost every semi-automatic pistol illegal.

        DB, it would be a good time to buy stock in every manufacturer that makes an M1911 .45., as the 7-round mag. is pretty standard with those.

      2. GMB

        “Here I have to agree with you in a lot of respects as to what constitutes “arms” for the general population.”

        I respectfully disagree with this statement. At this moment, if you wish, one can find plans and diagrams and dimensions for several types of automatic weapons. If one possess the inclination, skill, and desire, theses weapons can be readily produced. A ffl be damned.

        I think it is abundantly clear from the writings of our founding fathers that the citizens be just as well armed as any government; to prevent that government from using those weapons on the citizen.

        To assume otherwise, in my opinion, is nothing but folly.

      3. dbschmidt

        GMB,

        Here is where I also have to agree with you if this was still a Constitutional Republic untainted by Progressive influence. We are seeing what the Liberals and Progressives have sought since the turn of the 20th century. I still believe in hard work and an honest days wages for an honest days work plus the olde “Spare the rod–Spoil the child”

        Today the parents medicate their children and have “time outs” while the educational indoctrination system teaches there is no Creator and Government is your Daddy. Life and hard work no longer has value in the “Me, me, me, Now, now ,now” generation and I would not trust them with fully automatic weapons among other things like grenades.

        Look at any Sear’s catalog from the early 1900′s where you could order, through the mail and COD, numerous weapons from as many as 22pgs and have them shipped right to your front door.

        Right now I am interested in erecting a firewall against any further gun grabs, registration (which only leads to confiscation), and slippery slope enactments by our government who obviously do not understand the Constitution.

        If it comes down to a 2nd American revolution–first I hope is peaceful, but if not there will be plenty of crew served weapons available because I fully expect the majority of the military and law enforcement to be on “our” side. If not, there will always be those French-like weapons–you know “Never fired ~ only dropped once” available.

      4. Retired Spook

        I respectfully disagree with this statement. At this moment, if you wish, one can find plans and diagrams and dimensions for several types of automatic weapons. If one possess the inclination, skill, and desire, theses weapons can be readily produced. A ffl be damned.

        I think it is abundantly clear from the writings of our founding fathers that the citizens be just as well armed as any government; to prevent that government from using those weapons on the citizen.

        GMB, don’t you think that, if push comes to shove, both local and municipal law enforcement as well as state national guards would side with the “unorganized militia” and share their automatic weapons and ammunition? I can’t speak for other areas of the country, but I believe that would be the case around where I live. Until that point, I think more sophisticated weaponry is better kept in a secure armory. I can think of a number of people I wouldn’t trust to safeguard, a.50 cal., a rocket launcher or a crate of hand grenades.

      5. watsonthethird

        Spook said, “I think more sophisticated weaponry is better kept in a secure armory. I can think of a number of people I wouldn’t trust to safeguard, a.50 cal., a rocket launcher or a crate of hand grenades.”

        So the questions then become, who decides who can be trusted with weaponry, and what level of sophistication is required for a weapon to be better kept in a secure armory.

      6. Retired Spook

        So the questions then become, who decides who can be trusted with weaponry, and what level of sophistication is required for a weapon to be better kept in a secure armory.

        If state national guards can be counted on to side with the states and the people in the event that the federal government becomes tyrannical, then I don’t have a problem with the way things have been since 1934, and it was the SC that decided fully automatic weapons shouldn’t be owned by the general public. The Founders probably would say our present federal government should be overthrown — Jefferson almost certainly would — but we’ve allowed the creeping cancer of Progressivism to completely alter the original concept of a small, limited federal government in such a gradual way that I think it’s going to take a pretty drastic action by the federal government before you see an organized revolt. At some point, I expect there will be a line in the sand.

      7. dbschmidt

        Well Watson, a couple of things come to mind right away. As far as “who decides who can be trusted with weaponry.” I would start by allowing all “Honorably” discharged military, police, etc. who have proven that they are willing to write a check for up to including their life should get an “anything you want” ID card and keep complete idiots (like the majority of Congress) who know little to nothing from deciding anything.

        Then again, if we (as a nation) do not follow the lead of so many countries before and construct armories that have no government involvement up to and including the ability to come on the grounds, view, list, or confiscate those weapons held there with individual “keys” (issued to owners) as requirement to even enter the grounds–I might be willing to store some weapons in a handful of armories. Yet, I will always keep my favorites close at home in my personal armory.

        BTW, Spook–.50 Cal is the largest available caliber allowed under current Federal law with special Licensee restrictions. If I could afford it–I would love to have one of them new sniper rifles the Marine Corps now uses (mine was a modified 300). You know–reach out and touch someone a deer. That’s what I meant. When the grenade launcher isn’t getting the job done or you have a noisy hunting partner–take ‘em out at a mile or so.

        One more thing and it is an OT question but have you heard any reliable sources (as far as I am concerned) backing up this one source about a “Litmus test” for upper ranking officers;

        I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not”. Those who will not are being removed.

        Many versions available via Google.

      8. dbschmidt

        Oops,
        BTW, Spook–.50 Cal is the largest available caliber allowed under current Federal law with special Licensee restrictions.

        should read

        BTW, Spook–.50 Cal is the largest available caliber allowed under current Federal law without special Licensee restrictions.

        Maybe we should start by investigating Congress and the Anointed one with a series of questions, a a pop quiz of sorts. If you do this to Obama and asked him to explain what a barrel shroud, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, or pistol grip were, and why they made one gun more dangerous than another, all he could give you was a dumb look, followed by a sputtered attempt to change the subject.

        All those who fail get all security removed and a nice “Gun Free Zone” jacket to wear in case of meanies.

      9. watsonthethird

        The point, DB, is that someone has to decide–both who gets weapons and what kind. Either everyone can own anything they want, or you have restrictions. It is a matter of degree and who decides.

        As for your “litmus test,” you have some guy claiming he was told by an unnamed “former senior military officer” that President Obama made a statement or policy decision about military leaders. That’s not very convincing. But like you said, it’s all over the conservative blogs on the Internet. I’m surprised Cluster hasn’t picked it up yet.

      10. Cluster

        Watson,

        Knowing how hyper sensitive and irrational you become towards such things, I am going to look for it now.

      11. watsonthethird

        How’s the dig coming? (It’s high time you actually started trying to find facts for things you and your pals say.) You are to be congratulated.

      12. dbschmidt

        Watson,

        At this point, like many others, I am inclined to not answer because of your general untruthfulness (being kind here) and lack of comprehension.

        I said (as a question) “Many versions available via Google” which is a well known left wing search sight but you respond with a lie (ie. no factual information involved) “But like you said, it’s all over the conservative blogs on the Internet.” No, it is part of what you consider “real” news agencies as well.

        As to who decides, I have presented a partial answer that must rattle around in your empty skull of non-comprehension. I already stated that Congress (unless trained in weapons & the Constitution) should have nothing to do with it–that leaves the military & civilians to decide. Those leaving the military and other branches of government including CIA, NSA, FBI, that have handled weapons as a part of their daily duties down to police and other State, county, municipality duties would be given a “Free pass” card.

        Regular civilians, through whatever means avoided such duty from health issues and just getting their panties in a twist will need to be evaluated in front of a board made up of those that already have the privilege.

        Before we need to add the physco-babble crowd please read a few articles outside your normal range like the excepts below.
        —–

        Virginia Tech.
        Seung-Hui Cho, who committed the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, had been diagnosed with severe anxiety disorder as a child and placed under treatment. But Virginia Tech was prohibited from being told about Cho’s mental health problems because of federal privacy laws.

        Arizona
        The last of several emails Sorensen sent about Loughner said: “We have a mentally unstable person in the class that scares the living cr** out of me. He is one of those whose picture you see on the news, after he has come into class with an automatic weapon. Everyone interviewed would say, Yeah, he was in my math class and he was really weird.”

        That was the summer before Loughner killed six people at the Tucson shopping mall, including a federal judge and a 9 year-old girl, and critically wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, among others. Loughner also had run-ins with the law, including one charge for possessing drug paraphernalia — a lethal combination with mental illness. He was eventually asked to leave college on mental health grounds, released on the public without warning.

        Auroa, Colorodo
        James Holmes, the accused Aurora, Colo., shooter, was under psychiatric care at the University of Colorado long before he shot up a movie theater. According to news reports and court filings, Holmes told his psychiatrist, Dr. Lynne Fenton, that he fantasized about killing “a lot of people,” but she refused law enforcement’s offer to place Holmes under confinement for 72 hours.

        Newtown, Conn.
        Little is known so far about Adam Lanza, the alleged Newtown, Conn., elementary school shooter, but anyone who could shoot a terrified child and say to himself, “That was fun — I think I’ll do it 20 more times!” is not all there.

        It has been reported that Lanza’s mother, his first victim, was trying to have him involuntarily committed to a mental institution, triggering his rage. If true — and the media seem remarkably uninterested in finding out if it is true — Mrs. Lanza would have had to undergo a long and grueling process, unlikely to succeed.

        As The New York Times’ Joe Nocera recently wrote: “Connecticut’s laws are so restrictive in terms of the proof required to get someone committed that Adam Lanza’s mother would probably not have been able to get him help even if she had tried.”

        BTW, look up Joyce Brown (and the ACLU) in NYC just for shits and grins.

        Read it all at: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-01-16.html among others in her archive

      13. Retired Spook

        The point, DB, is that someone has to decide–both who gets weapons and what kind. Either everyone can own anything they want, or you have restrictions. It is a matter of degree and who decides.

        We already have restrictions, Watson. Would you have more or fewer?

      14. watsonthethird

        DB said, “At this point, like many others, I am inclined to not answer because of your general untruthfulness (being kind here) and lack of comprehension.” And I was untruthful how?

        You say:

        As to who decides, I have presented a partial answer that must rattle around in your empty skull of non-comprehension. I already stated that Congress (unless trained in weapons & the Constitution) should have nothing to do with it–that leaves the military & civilians to decide. Those leaving the military and other branches of government including CIA, NSA, FBI, that have handled weapons as a part of their daily duties down to police and other State, county, municipality duties would be given a “Free pass” card.

        Okay. So someone like, say, Timothy McVeigh–a former Army soldier–should have a “free pass” card to… what? Any kinds of weapons he wants? What about veterans suffering from mental illness? Does having been in the military entitle them to any weapons they’d like to have, no matter how deranged they have become? (And I’m not claiming that former soldiers become deranged, but mental illness affects a segment of the entire population, including former soldiers.)

        <blockquote
        Regular civilians, through whatever means avoided such duty from health issues and just getting their panties in a twist will need to be evaluated in front of a board made up of those that already have the privilege.

        And who appoints this board of civilians? Oh, right: “those that already have the privilege.” That is, former military personal. So essentially you’re saying that the military should have control over access to guns in the United States. Okay…

      15. watsonthethird

        Spook said, “We already have restrictions, Watson. Would you have more or fewer?”

        Right, we already have restrictions. There is already control.

        I would have more. I think every single gun sale should require a background check. There should be no exceptions.

      16. watsonthethird

        Sorry, db, you also included “police and other State, county, municipality duties” that could have guns, and I guess they would also be part of the board that would control access to guns for the rest of us. So this special class of Americans wouldn’t be composed entirely of current and former military members.

        There must be millions of present and former soldiers, police officers, etc. Which ones would make up the board? Who would decide that?

        And how does creating a board to control access to guns for the rest of Americans jibe with your reading of the Second Amendment and the intentions of the Founding Fathers? Do you suppose that they envisioned that some Americans would dictate to other Americans whether they could have a gun?

      17. dbschmidt

        Watson,

        Aside from being a “low information” citizen and hopefully not a voter–are there any other mental defects from you ever getting near any kind of weapons we know of including fertilizer (aside from the fact that you are already full of it)?

        Once again being kind here because it seems you have to read out loud to yourself; And I was untruthful how?

        I said (as a question) “Many versions available via Google” which is a well known left wing search sight but you respond with a lie (ie. no factual information involved) “But like you said, it’s all over the conservative blogs on the Internet.” No, it is part of what you consider “real” news agencies as well.

        Hint: It is the BOLD part.

        As to Mr. McVeigh;
        from Wikipedia;
        McVeigh aspired to join the United States Army Special Forces (SF). After returning from the Gulf War, he entered the selection program to become an SF soldier, but he quit after his psychological profile categorized him as very unsuitable for SF. Shortly thereafter, McVeigh decided to leave the Army. He was discharged on December 31, 1991.

        Which means he did not leave the Army under “honorable” conditions but if you really want to get me started–I can show that all of those from Mr. McVeigh onwards did have one commonality — a firm belief in Democrats, the Democratic party as well as Progressives. Should make you proud.

        Finally, you stated “I think every single gun sale should require a background check. There should be no exceptions.” Okay, but I want and believe that there should be a background check on drivers of cars, and ” free speech” and in particular–abortions –those folks should undergo a waiting period, view the 3D sonogram, have a waiting period and be denied if they do past stringent made up laws by a bunch of folks that have never had one. Sound fair. Abortion is not a Constitutional right endowed by the Creator so it should be stricter than those imposed on the 2nd Amendment–Okay Dude?

      18. dbschmidt

        Thank you for the “Sorry” although just understanding it is enough–email is a tough medium. Even under the description of militia was a requirement that the mentally unstable could not past muster. How did they do it then, how do we decide even “simple matters” like school districts now (not very easily if your in Wake County, NC)

        I would guess we select from a panel of the eligible. I am not really sure but I am trying to find a line of debarkation we can all agree on. Sandy Hook was tragic that I would like never see repeated but half the folks are blaming an inanimate object that was not used in any of my aforementioned tragedies . Personally, I think one armed recourse officer plus ballistic doors the electronically lock (w/ key override) would do a better job. Plus could make folks that are now scared of the police more friendly towards them–a bonus

      19. neocon01

        spook

        GMB, don’t you think that, if push comes to shove, both local and municipal law enforcement as well as state national guards would side with the “unorganized militia” and share their automatic weapons and ammunition? I

        NO they themselves have become militarized wanna bees, the net is full of videos of these modern day UNION THUG brown shirts abusing, beating, killing “**civilians”*** they are the last people who we could look too, we will be fighting against them.

      20. Retired Spook

        I would have more. I think every single gun sale should require a background check. There should be no exceptions.

        Watson, it’s pretty clear that you don’t have a clue as to how gun sales work. The “gun show loophole” that has become such a mantra of the Left is, to a large extent, a misnomer. If you’ve ever been to a gun show, you know that the vast majority of venders are registered dealers. As such, they are already required to perform background checks on anyone purchasing guns at the show. Do guns exchange hands between private individuals at gun shows? I’m sure they do, but unless you have law enforcement monitoring every single individual at the show and in the parking lot, that “loophole” is never going to be completely closed. Would you also require Vinny to call in a background check when he sells an unregistered handgun to Vito in a back ally? How? And, BTW, that’s how the majority of criminals get their guns. The number of guns that are purchased by criminals at gun shows is miniscule.

        Don’t get me wrong. I’m for doing background checks on as many gun purchasers as possible, but to say “there should be no exceptions” is naive in the extreme. Well, actually, even that’s not entirely accurate. There “should” be no exceptions, but there “will” be exceptions. Absent a complete police state, and given something like 300 millions guns in this country, “exceptions” are simply unavoidable. IMO, tightening up “loopholes” in our mental health system could go much farther than any new gun laws toward avoiding future Sandy Hooks.

      21. Retired Spook

        NO they themselves have become militarized wanna bees, the net is full of videos of these modern day UNION THUG brown shirts abusing, beating, killing “**civilians”*** they are the last people who we could look too, we will be fighting against them.

        I guess it depends on where you live. The last time I lived in Florida was when I was stationed in Pensacola in 68/69. I have two relatives who are both deputy sheriffs in the county where I live in Indiana. Both have told me that virtually all of the Sheriff’s department will quit before they’ll disarm any law-abiding citizens.

        Bottom line, I guess we’ll find out when the time comes. I’d certainly trust the local Sheriff more than I would someone from DHS or BATF. Pretty sad when the people who are sworn to protect us are a potential enemy.

      22. dbschmidt

        Spook & Watson,

        As far as “I would have more. I think every single gun sale should require a background check. There should be no exceptions.” there is one more interesting factoid to add–civilians cannot get into the Federal background check system without having a FFL.

        Even though I would never sell any of my guns to a stranger other than a FFL dealer; nevertheless, since I have relinquished my Class III FFL (4th amendment issues), I can no longer access the system. Might go a long to have a booth manned by Federal agents at gun shows to provide that extra check before guns change hands between individuals that are not dealers. Oh wait, that was proposed by the NRA back in 1995 and rejected by BATFE.

      23. Retired Spook

        Any armed uprising in the United States against the government should and needs must be put down with the clear and brutal power that is in the hands of these officers with no consideration for the outcome of the perpetrators save for their utter destruction.

        Major, in your opinion, would there ever come a time when the people would be justified in overthrowing their government? If so, under what circumstances would they be justified?

      24. neocon01

        majordumbo

        so the US military should have shot hundreds of thousands of blacks when they rampaged, looted, burned, murdered, pillaged every major US city (some twice) over the last 50 years??

      25. dbschmidt

        The officer’s oath in the military is slightly different than the enlisted oath; however, not in any way that would make them need to fire on Americans. Let’s take a look and pay attention to the bold section;

        I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

        Then again, laws like the Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus are designed to tightly restrict using the military against the American people. Also, why would they even be needed when the local police are as well equipped as the military and you still have the National Guard available?

        Then again, why does DHS (among other departments like NOAA) need 7,000 fully automatic “personal defense weapons”, also known in semi-automatic only configuration as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians, plus hundreds of thousands of hollow-point rounds Good (designed for) for killing people–not so much deer hunting or target practice.

    3. watsonthethird

      Yes, db, I see the bold part. I googled it. It looks like a bunch of conservative media outlets to me. But it doesn’t really matter. You have yet to present any evidence that it is anything more than thirdhand hearsay. For you, that seems good enough.

      As for your board of gun control, you have yet to describe how the members of the board would be selected. You have yet to explain how a board to control access to guns for the rest of Americans jibes with your reading of the Second Amendment and the intentions of the Founding Fathers. I mean, a board to control gun access? Isn’t that the very definition of gun control?

      Anyway, I’m signing off. Please do have the last word. Hopefully it will be to explain how the board to control gun access would work. Nighty night.

      1. dbschmidt

        Personally, I would not see a board of any kind short of checking those that wish to have a weapon as a Constitutional Conservative; nevertheless, a mental check out, like those on entering and exiting the military carried out by a person or persons that are even-handed for the general population are probably in order.

        No registration, no database, either you get an ID that says “Okay” or not with no time limitations. Failures should be kept and distributed to keep away multiple attempts w/ the ability for the individual to override.

        As far as the question I asked about –it was a question and not a belief of mine–I do not believe something before it can be corroborated.

        The 2nd Amendment is very clear as are militias–we need to deal with that as a separate issue from the crap politicians are now flinging against the wall in hope it sticks. Ballistic doors, rather than all of the crap that blathers out of Congress is what we need today. The 2nd Amendment is a separate issue using their [Congress's] “facts.”

        I’m tellin’ ya–I need my 2nd amendment rights here in NC. Deer are spooky. I want a four-deuce because the 20 mike-mike just ain’t cutting the mustard.

  3. Cluster

    In a world of wolves, the solution is not to create more sheep.

    Great line that I heard earlier today.

  4. Cluster

    Seriously Watson, I have been laughing all day at you and your side kick truthies over reaction the other day. It was even better than when you were surprised that the “opposition” party would actually, you know, oppose something.

    1. watsonthethird

      Cluster, I wasn’t surprised. You evidently don’t understand sarcasm. The Republicans are truly lost these days.

      As for my over-reaction, you’re the one that claims to be a political commentator, one who uses your inbox for material. That’s pretty funny.

      1. Cluster

        When have I claimed to be a political commentator? Now you’re just making shit up Watson. Remember that little thing about facts? truthie might challenge your manhood if you’re not careful.

        Please learn the first rule of holes.

      2. watsonthethird

        Cluster, you are a political commentator because you write articles for a political blog. You don’t have to announce, “I will now be a political commentator.”

        You are like a guy driving a car who claims he isn’t driving because he didn’t say he was. But as we’ve seen, you will try to weasel out of pretty much anything.

      3. Cluster

        I have written on many subjects here Warson – race and social issues. Does this make me a Race commentator? A social advocate?

        I am an unpaid contributor to an opinion blog that covers the spectrum of the national discourse, and one of which that shares my views from people I respect, and of whom I am proud to be associated with. That’s it. But thank you for elevating my stature.

      4. watsonthethird

        Okay, you’re a “contributor.” Obviously, B4V doesn’t care whether your “contributions” are backed by facts or are a bunch of lies. If you think I elevated your stature by describing how you fail to fact check what you write, then you have a lower opinion of yourself that I could have thought possible.

      5. Amazona

        But you see, wattle, Cluster IS a contributor, as is neo, as I myself am, as are tiredoflibbs and the Count and Spook and GMB. We CONTRIBUTE with ideas, we discuss, we sometimes debate each other in civil disagreement, and in general we participate in the blog.

        You, on the other hand, strive to be nothing more than a speed bump, a blog vandal, disrupting discourse to indulge your sick need to smear, attack, and in general vent your pathology.

        We see this blog as a gathering place for generally like-minded people to exchange ideas, about politics and current events and the direction in which our nation is headed. Every now and then a dissenter drops in who has the intellect and character to offer opposing points of view, and these rare birds are welcome—-I suggest you look at the lengthy back-and-forth on the Natural Born Citizen thread for the best example of this.

        Sadly, what we have learned is that in nearly every case the “opposition” to what we think and say is not based on understanding and choosing a clearly defined political system different from the one we support, but is devoid of such understanding and commitment, relying instead on a disgusting mental cocktail of blind seething rage, overt hostility, and a conviction that it is OK to attack, smear and insult strangers if one can pretend it is political dialogue.

        The blogosphere seems to provide a safe haven for personality disorders as well as a meeting place for people with a genuine desire to discuss ideas, share information, and participate in national debate on how best to govern the nation. You, wattle, clearly fall into the first category, as do the two or three misfits who keep coming back under different names in determination to continue wallowing in the muck of their disturbed psyches.

  5. Cluster

    The day that liberals can convince me that criminals obey laws – is the day that I might listen to them on this issue.

  6. Cluster

    ……… in particular–abortions –those folks should undergo a waiting period, view the 3D sonogram, have a waiting period and be denied if they do past stringent made up laws by a bunch of folks that have never had one. Sound fair. Abortion is not a Constitutional right endowed by the Creator so it should be stricter than those imposed on the 2nd Amendment–Okay Dude? – dbschmidt

    Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant.

    1. neocon01

      waspstoogethet*rd

      OOPS……..

      Coulter On Gun Violence: ‘If You Compare White Populations, We Have The Same Murder Rate As Belgium’…………

      Holy guns batman
      “Since the gun ban isn’t exactly cleansing the Windy City of crime, maybe they should start banning young, black males from the city. Police records show black males are the culprits using evil guns (probably semi-automatics, too!) to kill. Or maybe Chicago should just ban trigger fingers on its citizens? Hmmmmm

      After hearing of the 500th murder, Mayor Emanuel said it was “an unfortunate and tragic milestone, which not only marks a needless loss of life, but serves as a reminder of the damage that illegal guns and conflicts between gangs cause in our neighborhoods.”

      Illegal guns? What? How did that happen? Guns are banned in Chicago, for heaven’s sake! Don’t those gang bangers know and keep the law? I don’t know about you but I don’t think I want to live in a city where criminals don’t keep the law! What Chicago needs is a good midnight basketball league and some hearty renditions of “We Shall Overcome.”

      I know! Chicago needs a double-secret gun ban! Mayor Emanuel could let the fellas at the Delta Gang house that if there’s one more murder, then they’ll be outta Chicago faster than crap through a goose! Fifty point zero! Hey, a double-secret gun ban can’t work any worse than the current gun ban.

      Liberals love blaming guns for the violence found in big cities in blue states where young black males keep the streets red with blood. Guns are the whipping boy for the sad state of ghetto dwellers in America. Whatever happened to the excuse of slavery?! It was a fine excuse for out of control violence in the ghetto black community!

      Generations of welfare, violence, ignorance, and laziness has created the street terrorists that plague these cities. Single welfare mothers pumping out little future criminals one after another are the sad result to 60 years of cradle-to-grave welfare. Sure, you can ban guns. But the street terrorists always find a way to get them. Because they are criminals. The only positive here is that it’s highly likely that many of the dead were themselves criminals.

      Disarming honest people leaves them at the mercy of the merciless, armed criminals. It’s really pretty simple. Studies prove crime goes down when gun ownership goes up among law-abiding people. When law-abiding people are disarmed, you get Chicago.”

    2. neocon01

      Cluster

      [I] think we should respond with the next Republican president having executive orders [that say] we won’t ban abortions,
      but we will just ban abortionists and abortion clinics

      . How would that be? I mean, they’re not serious about doing anything about shooting in America. Dianne Feinstein has a concealed carry permit, for good reason,” Coulter said, referring to Feinstein admitting in 1995 that she had a concealed-carry permit for her own safety.

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/15/coulter-suggests-gop-ban-abortion-clinics-in-response-to-dem-ammo-restrictions-video/#ixzz2IzZt9BFM

    3. watsonthethird

      Brilliant? About as brilliant as his board of gun control.

      And leave it to NeoClown to turn the discussion toward race. You are nothing if not consistent, Clown.

      1. Retired Spook

        Watson,

        If, as Neo noted, you take only the white murder rate, we have the same rate as Belgium, then why would race not be an important part of the mix? Is it racist to note statistics that show, in a thread about guns, that gun violence and murder are more prevalent in one race versus another? I think not.

    4. tiredoflibbs

      Majordumb@ss forker: “Cluster would make the grand bargain and give up your guns, all firearms, to have abortion declared illegal and the act of seeking or performing one a felony?”

      your mindless stupidity reminds of this famous quote by an individual who is smarter that this forker’s own collective bubble-headed memory:

      “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Ben Franklin

      Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benjaminfr136955.html#L7m0E71D0liWjo8U.99

  7. M. Noonan

    As it has become part of the debate, I’d like to put this out because it shows what the Founders really thought of as being the “militia”:

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

    We advance, of course, and so this act, translated in to 2013 terms, means that all physically fit adult citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 are to be enrolled in the militia – and not on a voluntary basis! Note that a non-commissioned officer of the militia is to ensure that everyone is enrolled – and if new people move in to an area, it is the non-commissioned officer’s responsibility to get the new residents enrolled. Furthermore, within 6 months of enrollment, each citizen is to provide for himself weapons of war – not for hunting and not for personal self defense, but weapons which would stand him in good stead in fighting an actual war. Translated in to modern terms, this would require a citizen to obtain a fully automatic weapon or, perhaps, a grenade launcher or RPG of some sort. And here’s a real kicker – so important is it that each adult citizen be armed for war that his arms can not be taken from him even if he owes taxes!

    As this is from a 1792 law, it is clear that the Founders envisioned the United States as a nation in arms – before the French Revolutionaries called for such a thing, the United States government was calling for it. The whole idea that the militia is now the army and thus only the army should have military weapons is a clear misreading of both the letter and spirit of the 2nd Amendment.

  8. Amazona

    “If there is such a litmus test for commissioned officers in the United States military, it is justified by the nature of their commission where they take an oath to defend the Constitution not an oath that they will not put down an insurrection led by rebellious citizens with extreme prejudice.

    Any armed uprising in the United States against the government should and needs must be put down with the clear and brutal power that is in the hands of these officers with no consideration for the outcome of the perpetrators save for their utter destruction.”

    Sorry to step on the major pain’s gleeful anticipation of the “utter destruction” of Americans who believe our Constitutional rights to be inviolate, but she’s getting a little ahead of herself here. Oh, and inventing a scenario in which her blood lust would, according to her, be justified.

    Clearly the only thing that would please her more than the killing of an innocent and helpless infant in what is supposed to be the safety of its mother’s womb would be the sight of seeing believers in the Constitution “… put down with the clear and brutal power that is in the hands of these officers ..”

    Her visceral thrill at the very thought thrummed through her post, so vivid and joyful it nearly obscured the little fact that no 2nd Amendment supporter I know or have heard of has suggested an “…armed uprising against the government” or “an insurrection by rebellious citizens”. Looks like the major pain has been a busy little bee, redefining the word “defense” to mean “armed uprising”, “insurrection”, and “rebellion”. But I guess once you have identified more than half of the nation as “enemies” because they have different political views than you have, it must seem logical to a certain pathology to then get a thrill up the leg at the thought of the beloved, massive, all-powerful central government of your dreams using “… the clear and brutal power that is in the hands of these officers…” to crush and “utterly destroy” them.

    I thank the major pain for taking the time to illustrate the mindset of the rabidly radical Left. Oh, we have seen it often enough before, when Leftist leaders have engaged in the bloodsport of annihilation of political opposition, but it is interesting to see it exhibited here, in the person of one little social misfit, so filled with self-loathing she has to invent an entirely new fantasy identity, and so enamored of collectivism that her identity is not even one single persona but her own collective. While I don’t think the average RRL on the street is so off-kilter he has to refer to himself as “We, Ourselves”, I do think the blood lust exhibited here is not uncommon, as it is increasingly clear that the foot soldiers of the American Left are not motivated by political ideology nearly as much as by uncontrollable, soaring, raging, vicious hatred, and emotional violence.

    And history is rife with examples of this pathology on the loose when the Left has seized control.

    I think if we are going to include psych profiles in gun control efforts, we ought to start with the RRL. as they exhibit the very characteristics of irrational hatred, impotent rage, and entitlement regarding the assumed right to simply destroy those who get in their way, that we see with the mass killers whose acts are being used to try to justify disarming American citizens.

      1. neocon01

        protein wisdom: “Let’s just jump right in, shall we? In an October 14 panel presentation you gave at the ‘Black Media Forum on Image of Black Americans in Mainstream Media’ at Howard University (which aired on CSPAN), you said — and I’m quoting here—’We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet.’ My question is, did you mean that, like, literally, or…– ?”

        Kambon: “– Literally, yes. Wipe ‘em all out.”

        protein wisdom: “Like, in ovens and such…?”

        Kambon: “Well, the method is immaterial, frankly—though Whitey’s sheer volume would probably make the use of ovens, at least until the initial extermination procedure is carried out and the herd is thinned considerably, rather impractical. I’m no expert on these kinds of things, mind you, but if I had to speculate, I should think something more covert is necessary, like, oh, I don’t know –”

        protein wisdom: “—Poisoning Country Kitchen buffets, bombing professional hockey venues, things like that –?”

        Kambon: “– Exactly, yes. Places where Whitey gathers and engages in sinister Whitey activities.”

        protein wisdom: “Like plotting to kill all the blacks.”

        Kambon: “Like plotting to kill all the blacks, right. Which, I should note, many people who are commenting on this controversy seem to forget was the basis for my remarks—this systematic plan Whitey has to kill the black man.”

        protein wisdom: “Uh huh. And Whitey wants to do this because…?”

        Kambon: “I don’t know. You tell me. You’re the evil Honky.”

    1. M. Noonan

      Amazona,

      He feels that way because his side is in charge – and he, I guess, presumes we’ll never win, again. But if it was our side in charge, he’d sing a different tune.

      As for me, I’ve long advocated for a small standing army because a small standing army is not a threat to the liberties of the American people (I do favor a large Navy, on the other hand – one much larger than we currently have – because a Navy cannot oppress on land). And now I’ve swung around to support for abolishing the National Guard and the re-institution of the State militia system…each State to raise up a number of volunteer militia infantry regiments (unpaid, with all members purchasing their own military-style weapons) to serve the needs of both national defense and emergency services during an internal crisis…and to ensure that the people retain the overwhelming majority of military power within the United States.

    2. dbschmidt

      Well, Obama mentor Bill Ayers has already stated that they would have to plan for the execution of some 25 million Americans when the re-education camps did not work after the downfall / collapse of our Constitutional government. Maybe this is what “We, ourselves” is referring to as “an insurrection by rebellious citizens”.

    1. Amazona

      Does anyone know what a “military style weapon” IS?

      Is it one that is Army green? One with a folding stock? One with a flash suppressor? One with a barrel shroud? One in matte black or grey instead of reflective polished metal?

      How do any of these additions to a basic weapon add to its lethality? By the standards of the anti-gun hysterics, if I were to deck out my .17 cal varmint rifle with a barrel shroud and folding stock, and paint it camo or military green, it should be banned.

      Last night I heard a hysterical shrew call in to the Sean Hannity radio show squealing about the increased power of these so-called “assault weapons” yet most classified as such are less powerful than standard hunting rifles.

      I am getting really tired of ignorance dominating every decision made in this country.

    2. dbschmidt

      “Exempts government officials” is one of the largest problems I see today. If our wonderful legislators think a new law is so friggin’ wonderful–I think it should apply to them first and foremost. That would include stripping them of all of the wonderful things they have already exempted themselves from like modifications to the 1st amendment (when in official capacity), SS & Medicare, Retirement, etc.. Well that would be a small start.

  9. Amazona

    This comment by the major pain, posted January 26, 2013 at 3:59 pm, is so important that I am going to post this on every thread, because I don’t want it to be overlooked:

    The Constitution was not written to protect the people; it was written to preserve the Union and the rights of, initially, white men who owned property.”

    Looking past the racism that permeates all of the major pain’s outlook (there is another reference to “white Americans” in the same post) and the fact that I thought all posts from the forkers were to be deleted because of the rampant bigotry that marks them, we need to look at this precise statement:

    THE CONSTITUTION WAS NOT WRITTEN TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE, IT WAS WRITTEN TO PRESERVE THE UNION—that is, the government.

    What could be a clearer statement of the core belief of the rabidly radical Left? Get past the fact that to believe this means a complete inability to understand fact, language or history—–it is a summary of the credo of the Left.

    That is, that nothing is more important than the government, nothing is less important than the individual.

    Now, those of us who have read the Constitution, those of us who have studied it and read not only the document but the supporting, contemporaneous writings of those who created it, those of us who understand the goals of the Founders and the events that led up to the writing of the document, all know that the Constitution is NOT about protecting the Union, but about protecting the people FROM the Union.

    The rabidly radical Left simply ignores fact, history and language because they are so deeply committed to the concept that government is always more important than people.

  10. labman57

    The right to bear arms was incorporated into the Constitution because the government did not have a substantial standing army and wanted to make sure that a civilian militia could be recruited quickly and efficiently should the need arise.

    In other words, the Second Amendment was written so that the public could HELP the government, not in order to attack the government. With our modern armed forces — including the National Guard — this type of civilian-based militia is no longer a necessity.

    In addition, I doubt that the Founding Fathers ever envisioned “arms” which could fire 50-60 rounds per minute.  
    Want to keep a shotgun under the bed, a hunting rifle in the closet, or a handgun in the bureau drawer?  Be my guest.
    Want to use high-capacity magazines with your Glock … or keep a semi-automatic assault rifle in the closet?  That’s another story.

    If you need a semi-automatic rifle to go hunting … this doesn’t speak well of your skill as a hunter.

      1. Amazona

        But you see, to a fluttery Lib who has probably never even stepped off a groomed trail (if he has even been out of a city) and probably never hunted anything more elusive than the perfect half-caf no-fat no-foam soy latte, a good hunter will always drop his prey instantly with a single shot, and not need a quick second shot to ensure that the animal is not able to run for a distance, possibly losing the hunter or at least suffering for a longer-than-necessary period of time before being finished off.

        Few things mark the rabidly radical Lib more clearly than the eagerness to make absolute pronouncements upon things about which he is utterly ignorant.

    1. neocon01

      libman

      A violent Saturday leaves 7 dead
      Chicago Tribune ^ | 27 jan 2013 | Adam Sege, Dawn Rhodes and Rosemary Regina Sobol

      Four shootings — two of them double homicides — and a ***stabbing*** left 7 people dead Saturday, authorities said.

      The killings brought the number of homicides in 2013 to 40.

      In what appeared to be the last homicide of the day, a 32-year-old man was fatally stabbed about 11:50 p.m. in the South Shore neighborhood on the South Side, police said.

      The stabbing happened during a domestic argument in the 2500 block of East 73rd Street, Chicago Police Department News Affairs Officer Ron Gaines said.

      The man, identified by the Cook County medical examiner’s office as Willie Wilson of the 2500 block of East 73rd Street, was found unresponsive on the scene. He was pronounced dead there at 11:55 p.m. with a stab wound to the chest.

    2. Retired Spook

      Labman,

      Well, you’ve got all the talking points down — I’ll give you that.

      In other words, the Second Amendment was written so that the public could HELP the government, not in order to attack the government.

      That was certainly part of the equation, or the 2nd Amendment wouldn’t have even mentioned the militia. It ignores, however, a long list of contradictory statements by numerous Founders, many of which have been presented in this thread.

      In addition, I doubt that the Founding Fathers ever envisioned “arms” which could fire 50-60 rounds per minute.

      They didn’t envision trains, planes, automobiles, telephones, radio, TV, microwave ovens, computers and smart phones either, so what’s your point?

    3. tiredoflibbs

      Sadly labman, the phrase “the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” unravels your whole argument.

      That argument is also just a mindless regurgitation of proggy dumbed down talking points. It has been regurgitated 100s of times already and does not change the meaning of the phrase above.

      Pathetic.

    4. Amazona

      In response to labman’s plaintive desire to believe that “…. the Second Amendment was written so that the public could HELP the government, not in order to attack the government.” I offer just a very few of the quotes available from the Founders on the subject. (emphasis mine)

      “I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances.”
      Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Jacob J. Brown (1808)

      “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
      Thomas Jefferson (attributed without source)

      “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.
      Alexander Hamilton Federalist #28

      [Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.
      James Madison, In his autobiography

      “…. if 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 use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…
      Alexander Hamilton Federalist 29

      “… of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms…. If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny.
      James Monroe (1758-1831), 5th US President

      “Government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit and security of the people, nation or community; whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, indefeasible right, to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public Weal.”
      George Mason (1725-1792), drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights, ally of James Madison and George Washington

      As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly 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 next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
      Tench Coxe (1755-1824), writing as “A Pennsylvanian,” in “Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution,”

      “Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
      Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789; spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750

      “The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the 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 (1779-1845) U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1811-1845. His father was one of the Sons of Liberty who took part in the Boston Tea Party and fought at Lexington & Concord in 1775. The above quote was from 1833

      “The importance of this article [the Second Amendment] 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.
      Joseph Story (1779-1845) U.S. Supreme Court Justice, appointed by James Madison in 1811

      “The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals… It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.”
      Albert Gallatin (1761-1849) Congressman, Treasury Secretary, House Majority Leader, quote from Oct 7, 1789

      “While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny.”
      Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789 Episcopal pastor, friend of Benjamin Franklin

      *********************

      OK, let’s move into more modern times to see what others have had to say about the new and silly claim that the Constitution was written not to protect the people but to protect the Union.

      “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
      Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

      “The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of people.”
      Justice William O. Douglas (1898-1980), U. S. Supreme Court Justice
      Source: The Court Years, 1939-1975, 1980

      “Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.
      Sen. Hubert Humphrey

      “…By calling attention to a well-regulated militia for the security of the Nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fear of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the Second Amendment, will ever be an important danger to our Nation, the Amendment remains an important declaration of our basic military-civilian relationship, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”
      President John F. Kennedy

Comments are closed.