The real history of gun rights that Americans are not taught.

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

He would have been in custody. Given the police reports and the times he was in trouble both in school and at home, he would probably ended up on a boys ranch, learning some values and coping skills.

He absolutely should have been in custody in my opinion. I've spent a considerable amount of time pondering how to get to the root of the problem and discovered that many times it appears that people fail or are afraid to take action even when it's brought to their attention that a particular person is consistently causing a problem. I've outlined all of the indicators in Cruz's case in the following thread. I find it anguishing that they want to convict the school resource office who actually tried to get Cruz committed because of this ambush when everyone knew that he was a problem so much so that he was place in some sort of program that basically shield a minor offender from the repercussions of their acts by sealing their criminal records, I think that was how it was explained.
He always hated women. Then he decided to kill them.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

He would have been in custody. Given the police reports and the times he was in trouble both in school and at home, he would probably ended up on a boys ranch, learning some values and coping skills.

He absolutely should have been in custody in my opinion. I've spent a considerable amount of time pondering how to get to the root of the problem and discovered that many times it appears that people fail or are afraid to take action even when it's brought to their attention that a particular person is consistently causing a problem. I've outlined all of the indicators in Cruz's case in the following thread. I find it anguishing that they want to convict the school resource office who actually tried to get Cruz committed because of this ambush when everyone knew that he was a problem so much so that he was place in some sort of program that basically shield a minor offender from the repercussions of their acts by sealing their criminal records, I think that was how it was explained.
He always hated women. Then he decided to kill them.

I have spent years studying people who commit mass murder with weapons. I came up with a list of 16 indicators (markers) and once a person goes over half of those markers plus takes psychotropic drugs (SSRIs), there is a 100 percent chance that individual will commit a violent act against someone else.

Nicholas Cruz went over half of those markers and the SSRIs pushed him over the limit. Today, when a child enters school, if they have a behavioral problem, the FIRST thing the system does is put them on drugs - Ritalin, Adderall, Prozac, Lexapro, etc., etc. How stupid can they be!!!

What if the problem is the parents lack of parenting skills, abuse by the parents, a child in a one parent home, or the child of drug abusers? We already spend the money to generate reports. Why not have a special unit at the county level that would interview the child, then go to the parents home to inform them and develop a profile on what they observe?

Are the parents cooperative and caring? Is it a single parent who is frazzled and cannot take care of the family? What kind of conditions does the interviewer see in the home? If the parents are uncooperative, a criminal background check might lead the interviewer down a different path rather than putting all their focus on the child. What does the interviewer conclude about the child after the child has been evaluated and interviewed?

I think if we had a grass roots effort to examine this idea and then bring it before the public, we could do what the legislators won't do. I think we should be looking at preventative measures.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I think if we had a grass roots effort to examine this idea and then bring it before the public, we could do what the legislators won't do. I think we should be looking at preventative measures.

I agree but unfortunately my experiences with local organizations is that they're focused on keeping famalies together even when that's not inecessarily in the best interest of the child. In Cruz's case, his behavior was so blatent and over the top, none of them can state that they didn't know he had problems. And the way our laws are written here in WA state, you have to be a family member I believe to request intervention.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I think if we had a grass roots effort to examine this idea and then bring it before the public, we could do what the legislators won't do. I think we should be looking at preventative measures.

I agree but unfortunately my experiences with local organizations is that they're focused on keeping famalies together even when that's not inecessarily in the best interest of the child. In Cruz's case, his behavior was so blatent and over the top, none of them can state that they didn't know he had problems. And the way our laws are written here in WA state, you have to be a family member I believe to request intervention.

It would take changes in the laws of each state, but if a person is involved in behavior that is known to likely become an imminent threat, then local governments CAN investigate. When kids are expelled or suspended from school; when they generate a police investigation and a report is filed, then the local LEO community already has the authority to investigate and remove children from dangerous / abusive homes and / or have a mental health official evaluate a child.

All great ideas begin at the grass roots level. So, if you ever decide that this is worth pursuing, I'm always looking for people to help bring the idea to the attention of legislators - or anyone else that would like to see something done, PM me.

 

[Abatis]

Basically, the Second Amendment was about killing Indians, taking their land and controlling the slave population, according to author and historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz.

I had replied to this OP before the board hiccuped; seems the post was transported into the WWW abyss.

Just wanted to stop back and just make sure that you know that this theory isn't new or original to this kooky SJW, and most important, not in any way correct.

It first came to being in 1998 in a law review article written by a guy aptly named Bogus, called, The Hidden History of the Second Amendment. This article was a product of the times, not the historical record . . . It was written at a time when anti-gun academia was in a tailspin and just throwing whatever BS they could think up to disparage the "Standard Model", AKA the individual right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

That article barely made a ripple then in the legal realm or in academia which the author admits. It slipped into the obscurity it deserved and was forgotten.

Fast forward to 2013 and a Progressive commentator thought to capitalize on the racial and cultural divisiveness of the Obama years and the shock of Sandy Hook and he resurrected the Bogus theory in an article published by TruthOut, The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery.

This article did make waves in the leftist blogosphere and among various racial rabble-rousers and gun control advocates, but again was ignored by academics and those in the legal field . . . With one notable exception.

Writing in The Root, a respected historian took the TruthOut article apart and chastised the author Thom Hartmann.

His commentary is worth reading in its entirety, (because he is a liberal kindred spirit to Hatmann and Bogus, an anti-gunner / individual right denier), just so you can relieve yourself of any thought that the "slave patrol" theory and this latest retread of it, has any value:

2nd Amendment Passed to Protect Slavery? No!

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Basically, the Second Amendment was about killing Indians, taking their land and controlling the slave population, according to author and historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz.

Horsepucky.
The right to keep and bear arms is, at its most basic level revolves around the right to self-defense, exercised individually or collectively.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I think if we had a grass roots effort to examine this idea and then bring it before the public, we could do what the legislators won't do. I think we should be looking at preventative measures.

I agree but unfortunately my experiences with local organizations is that they're focused on keeping famalies together even when that's not inecessarily in the best interest of the child. In Cruz's case, his behavior was so blatent and over the top, none of them can state that they didn't know he had problems. And the way our laws are written here in WA state, you have to be a family member I believe to request intervention.

It would take changes in the laws of each state, but if a person is involved in behavior that is known to likely become an imminent threat, then local governments CAN investigate. When kids are expelled or suspended from school; when they generate a police investigation and a report is filed, then the local LEO community already has the authority to investigate and remove children from dangerous / abusive homes and / or have a mental health official evaluate a child.r the ne

All great ideas begin at the grass roots level. So, if you ever decide that this is worth pursuing, I'm always looking for people to help bring the idea to the attention of legislators - or anyone else that would like to see something done, PM me.

Thank you, I'm extremely busy at the moment but would love to discuss this further with you after I meet a couple of time sensative deadlines over the next few weeks. Look for a PM from me nonetheless.

Talk to you soon...
-Mariyam

 

[Picaro]

Our founders never had machine guns.....you can look it up[/QUOTE]

Some citizens could own cannons, though.

In any case, the fact is states could and did pass and enforce gun control laws, same as they had state supported religious sects and several things that would annoy ideologues on either wing, like regulation of corporations and allowing very few the privilege of limited liability protections of shareholders. Gun control laws were extensively based on racial discrimination, from colonial times onward, but they applied many of the restrictions now whined about in this thread. Pseudo-intellectuals trying to use 'The Founders' in silly appeals to authority only prove their ignorance on both guns and religion. Many towns and territories in the 'Old West' practiced strict gun controls as well.

 

[Abatis]

In any case, the fact is states could and did pass and enforce gun control laws, same as they had state supported religious sects and several things that would annoy ideologues on either wing, like regulation of corporations and allowing very few the privilege of limited liability protections of shareholders. Gun control laws were extensively based on racial discrimination, from colonial times onward, but they applied many of the restrictions now whined about in this thread. Pseudo-intellectuals trying to use 'The Founders' in silly appeals to authority only prove their ignorance on both guns and religion. Many towns and territories in the 'Old West' practiced strict gun controls as well.

But the discussion is about the 2nd Amendment and the federally recognized and secured right to arms. Your argument has no weight and your chastising people for citing 'The Founders' shows your ignorance of the legal operation of the Bill of Rights on state laws . . . Which was ZERO!

The Bill of Rights had no impact on any state laws until the ratification of the 14th Amendment and that was frustrated by SCOTUS in 1873 in The Slaughterhouse Cases.

Specifically for the right to arms -- as recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment -- it was not enforceable (incorporated) against states until 2010, made so in McDonald v Chicago and the impact of incorporation has yet to be realized.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

This site did something strange. I am not responsible for the way it quoted Picaro. Picaro wrote:

Our founders never had machine guns.....you can look it up

Some citizens could own cannons, though.

In any case, the fact is states could and did pass and enforce gun control laws, same as they had state supported religious sects and several things that would annoy ideologues on either wing, like regulation of corporations and allowing very few the privilege of limited liability protections of shareholders. Gun control laws were extensively based on racial discrimination, from colonial times onward, but they applied many of the restrictions now whined about in this thread. Pseudo-intellectuals trying to use 'The Founders' in silly appeals to authority only prove their ignorance on both guns and religion. Many towns and territories in the 'Old West' practiced strict gun controls as well.[/QUOTE]

RESPONSE TO PICARO

You're making it very plain that you're addicted to partisan politics rather than a civil discussion that would lead us to the truth. The only reason our founders didn't have "machine guns" is due to the simple fact that they had not been invented. OTOH, high capacity firearms go back as far as 1580.

At the time that the Second Amendment was being ratified, the state of the art for multi-shot guns was the Girandoni air rifle, with a twenty-two-shot magazine capacity. Meriwether Lewis carried a Girandoni on the Lewis and Clark expedition. At the time, air guns were ballistically equal to powder guns in terms of bullet size and velocity. The .46 and .49 caliber Girandoni rifles were invented around 1779 for use in European armies and were employed by elite units. One shot could penetrate a one-inch thick wood plank or take down an elk.

There is no doubt that many a state and local jurisdiction passed anti-gun laws. But, what must be remembered is that the courts are the bodies that the Constitution gives the authority to interpret the laws. So, let's get real for a moment.

The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. Only 31 years later in the state of Kentucky you will find the courts busy deciding what the Second Amendment means.

In 1822 a man named Bliss was fined $100 for carrying a concealed weapon. He took the case to court and the law was ruled unconstitutional. Anti-gunners might argue that Bliss was carrying a sword disguised as a cane. But, swords are "arms" as per the definition of the word. Bliss used as his defense, the state constitution which read:

“The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned.”

Bottom line: Bliss won his case. The law was declared unconstitutional. The next time a case made it through the court system was in the state of Georgia in 1846. There, the Georgia Supreme Court HELD:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, "

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In the state of Texas their Supreme Court made the Right unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

So, while you can find all kinds of laws that infringed on the Right to keep and bear Arms, the laws were quite clear AND those laws - even back then, would have protected weapons that have a high capacity mechanism. So, sadly, your statutes are irrelevant if / when the courts rule the law unconstitutional. ALL of the early court decisions did just that. Have I mentioned a founding father yet?