2nd Amendment Discussion

[Porter Rockwell]

The Founding Fathers were very concerned that a single madman had the ability to kill many of them at a whim.

Which happens every week now, but hey...

I think they had no clue just far advanced weaponry would become. When they sat down and wrote that...they had no clue about airplanes, trains, speed cars, tanks, jets, floating artillary ships, nukes, etc. Their goal was for every citizen to be able to protect themselves..which is what most of us that own weapon(s) planned when purchasing them. That I have no problem with. But..I see no reason why deeper delving into psyche should also be utilitzed to keep the nutbars from owning them. The guy in El Paso..his dad seems to be a nutbar too. So who bought him the weapons? Him or the guy himself? Also, on the other end of the dilemma....criminals don't really care about the standards and hoops of red tape to get a gun. Black market is alive and well.

I think that you would have to believe Benjamin Franklin a dullard to think he didn't anticipate a lot of modern marvels. But, since this is about firearms, the expeditionists Lewis and Clark employed a rifle that shot a 41 caliber rifle with a 30 round capacity (though it was only effective for the first 20 rounds) so the founders / framers knew what they were saying.

A principle of Liberty or Freedom doesn't change just because technology does. That is why people can believe in cults that are dangerous and we cannot stop people from believing in things that could cause them harm: handling snakes, devil worship, and a few other things come to mind.

The real deal with automatic weaponry is that today such weaponry is so antiquated, many people can build their own weapons at home, from scratch. Your time and effort would be better spent worrying about preventing criminals and people who pose a danger to themselves and others from running amok in a free society

 

[danielpalos]

Next question....why does anyone want to own an AK47 or whatever they are called? For what purpose? To just blow stuff up?

An AK, AR, M1A, SCAR, FN FAL, etc. etc. are used to insure the security of a Free State. If only the police and military owned these weapons, you would have a POLICE STATE.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is a preexisting Right (meaning the Right predates the Constitution.) The legislatures have no legal / lawful / constitutional AUTHORITY to require licenses, permits, registration, etc. of these weapons because the Right to keep and bear Arms exists separately and independently from the Constitution.

BTW, I did not say the government lacks the power. They don't have the AUTHORITY to enforce anti-gun laws.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

They are the only ones that the liberals want to disarm. That leaves NOBODY to insure the security of a FREE STATE. Everybody who could repel a tyrannical government would be working FOR the government if it went your way.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

They are the only ones that the liberals want to disarm. That leaves NOBODY to insure the security of a FREE STATE. Everybody who could repel a tyrannical government would be working FOR the government if it went your way.

We have a Second Amendment. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well. We should have no security problems in our free States.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

They are the only ones that the liberals want to disarm. That leaves NOBODY to insure the security of a FREE STATE. Everybody who could repel a tyrannical government would be working FOR the government if it went your way.

We have a Second Amendment. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well. We should have no security problems in our free States.

What idiocy! Just because someone owns a gun makes them no more a gun lover than the guy with a hammer he needs is a hammer lover. What absolute idiocy,dannyboy. You're topping yourself.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

That, dannyboy, is how you regulate a militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

They are the only ones that the liberals want to disarm. That leaves NOBODY to insure the security of a FREE STATE. Everybody who could repel a tyrannical government would be working FOR the government if it went your way.

We have a Second Amendment. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well. We should have no security problems in our free States.

What idiocy! Just because someone owns a gun makes them no more a gun lover than the guy with a hammer he needs is a hammer lover. What absolute idiocy,dannyboy. You're topping yourself.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

That, dannyboy, is how you regulate a militia.

maybe, in right wing fantasy.

this is the common law for the common defense:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

They are the only ones that the liberals want to disarm. That leaves NOBODY to insure the security of a FREE STATE. Everybody who could repel a tyrannical government would be working FOR the government if it went your way.

We have a Second Amendment. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well. We should have no security problems in our free States.

What idiocy! Just because someone owns a gun makes them no more a gun lover than the guy with a hammer he needs is a hammer lover. What absolute idiocy,dannyboy. You're topping yourself.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

That, dannyboy, is how you regulate a militia.

maybe, in right wing fantasy.

this is the common law for the common defense:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

They are the only ones that the liberals want to disarm. That leaves NOBODY to insure the security of a FREE STATE. Everybody who could repel a tyrannical government would be working FOR the government if it went your way.

We have a Second Amendment. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well. We should have no security problems in our free States.

What idiocy! Just because someone owns a gun makes them no more a gun lover than the guy with a hammer he needs is a hammer lover. What absolute idiocy,dannyboy. You're topping yourself.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

That, dannyboy, is how you regulate a militia.

maybe, in right wing fantasy.

this is the common law for the common defense:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

WTF does that "right wing fantasy" mean dannyboy? You manufacture some of the worst communist horseshit lines that simply don't take - even among your fellow travelers. WTF is a right wing fantasy? What's a fantasy about what a founder says? Are you saying the founders were delusional? OR you think communism is going to rule and the constitutionalists will some day be kissing your ass?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people 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 article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
-Patrick Henry, Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

“(C)onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular States, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.”
-Roger Sherman, Debates on 1790 Militia Act

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” —Alexander Hamilton

"the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure." Thomas Jefferson in a 1787 letter to William Stephens

So, the author of the Declaration of Independence, the father of the Constitution and a host of other founders / framers and legal authorities have weighed in on the Right to keep and bear Arms. I guess they are all a "right wing fantasy????"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Next question....why does anyone want to own an AK47 or whatever they are called? For what purpose? To just blow stuff up?

An AK, AR, M1A, SCAR, FN FAL, etc. etc. are used to insure the security of a Free State. If only the police and military owned these weapons, you would have a POLICE STATE.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is a preexisting Right (meaning the Right predates the Constitution.) The legislatures have no legal / lawful / constitutional AUTHORITY to require licenses, permits, registration, etc. of these weapons because the Right to keep and bear Arms exists separately and independently from the Constitution.

BTW, I did not say the government lacks the power. They don't have the AUTHORITY to enforce anti-gun laws.

“An AK, AR, M1A, SCAR, FN FAL, etc. etc. are used to insure [sic] the security of a Free State. If only the police and military owned these weapons, you would have a POLICE STATE.”

Nonsense.

Conservatives need to stop trying to ‘justify’ the possession of an AK, AR, M1A, SCAR, FN FAL, and other like rifles and carbines by claiming they facilitate the ‘preservation’ of a ‘free state’ – when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Again, there’s nothing in Second Amendment jurisprudence in support of insurrectionist dogma, nothing that supports the wrongheaded notion that citizens have a ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected government through force of arms subjectively and incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

Whether or not the possession of an AR 15 is within the scope of Second Amendment protections will ultimately be decided by the courts; but regardless how the courts might rule, the possession of an AR 15 has nothing to do with ensuring the security of a free state.

“The Right to keep and bear Arms is a preexisting Right (meaning the Right predates the Constitution.) The legislatures have no legal / lawful / constitutional AUTHORITY to require licenses, permits, registration, etc. of these weapons because the Right to keep and bear Arms exists separately and independently from the Constitution.”

Wrong.

Government has both the power and authority to require licenses, permits, registration, and any other firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law.

Our rights are indeed inalienable, but they are not ‘absolute,’ including the Second Amendment right. It is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

And government has the authority to enact laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Next question....why does anyone want to own an AK47 or whatever they are called? For what purpose? To just blow stuff up?

An AK, AR, M1A, SCAR, FN FAL, etc. etc. are used to insure the security of a Free State. If only the police and military owned these weapons, you would have a POLICE STATE.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is a preexisting Right (meaning the Right predates the Constitution.) The legislatures have no legal / lawful / constitutional AUTHORITY to require licenses, permits, registration, etc. of these weapons because the Right to keep and bear Arms exists separately and independently from the Constitution.

BTW, I did not say the government lacks the power. They don't have the AUTHORITY to enforce anti-gun laws.

“An AK, AR, M1A, SCAR, FN FAL, etc. etc. are used to insure [sic] the security of a Free State. If only the police and military owned these weapons, you would have a POLICE STATE.”

Nonsense.

Conservatives need to stop trying to ‘justify’ the possession of an AK, AR, M1A, SCAR, FN FAL, and other like rifles and carbines by claiming they facilitate the ‘preservation’ of a ‘free state’ – when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Again, there’s nothing in Second Amendment jurisprudence in support of insurrectionist dogma, nothing that supports the wrongheaded notion that citizens have a ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected government through force of arms subjectively and incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

Whether or not the possession of an AR 15 is within the scope of Second Amendment protections will ultimately be decided by the courts; but regardless how the courts might rule, the possession of an AR 15 has nothing to do with ensuring the security of a free state.

“The Right to keep and bear Arms is a preexisting Right (meaning the Right predates the Constitution.) The legislatures have no legal / lawful / constitutional AUTHORITY to require licenses, permits, registration, etc. of these weapons because the Right to keep and bear Arms exists separately and independently from the Constitution.”

Wrong.

Government has both the power and authority to require licenses, permits, registration, and any other firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law.

Our rights are indeed inalienable, but they are not ‘absolute,’ including the Second Amendment right. It is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

And government has the authority to enact laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms.

The moment you used the word "inalienable" was a dead giveaway that you not qualified to debate this issue. I have a standard answer that uses court holdings to refute everything you've said. Let us begin:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}


“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Can you see that connection between absolute and unalienable?


Now, let's shift gears. BEFORE a statute or a constitutional principle is settled, it goes through a process. It may start at the state level or the federal level, but no matter what the issue, it starts in lower courts and is appealed. Unless and / or until the United States Supreme Court weighs in, whatever the decision is, in the highest court it reaches determines whether or not it is law. For example, in Georgia, Nunn v. Georgia is persuasive authority in all federal appeals courts. It is THE law in Georgia unless and until a federal appeals court strikes it down - then it is subject to being heard by the United States Supreme Court. It is persuasive authority in all other courts - which means the judges have to at least look at the reasoning. So, let us follow the Second Amendment and give you the bare bones:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia


In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“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, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)


In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point 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)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

Only 33 years after the ratification of the Constitution of the United States, the states began litigating the Second Amendment AND the Right to keep and bear Arms. Every state decision was coming out the same way. The courts said the Right to keep and bear Arms is absolute and then defined that word for you: it is synonymous with inherent, natural, unalienable, and above the lawmaking process. Do you understand that word absolute? The United States Supreme Court admitted that it did not grant nor create the Right and the Right was not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence. The Right predates the Constitution.

So, there is a very sound case. Now, the United States Supreme Court only has the authority to interpret the Constitution, so when they violate their constitutional limitations, it is rare and done so that the public won't give a shit about HOW we got what the masses wanted, only that they got what wanted. So we went from an absolute, natural, inherent, unalienable, and above the law Right (aka a God given Right) to this:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Whoa, wait, what??? Like most rights? Then the United States Supreme Court is saying SOME of the Bill of Rights is unlimited, but not the Second Amendment? At what level does that make sense to you? Unless the United States Supreme Court got into the Rights granting business, that ruling would have been just cause for an internal civil war. If the United States Supreme Court has already ruled on a point of law, they are legislating from the bench to over-rule their own decisions. If they don't like the law, they should have to do what you and I do: petition legislators for a change in the law. But, again, how can SOME rights be unlimited and others not? The Bill of Rights was one Bill and the standing precedent in the FIRST SUPREME COURT DECISIONS IS EXACTLY 180 DEGREES OPPOSITE OF DC V. HELLER.

The United States Supreme Court got some kind of new angle to gain power over you. Enter the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment created TWO classes of citizenship. BTW, don't waste bandwidth with your criticisms of that statement. I learned it in an accredited law school and can produce the textbook explaining the concept. Look at that Amendment carefully:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; laws."

Do you see the word Rights in the 14th Amendment? I sure as Hell do not. And that is ALL the 14th Amendment has to say other than to GRANT unspecified "privileges and "immunities." Shall we continue?

"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

"Persons" are guaranteed life, liberty and property along with due process along with the equal protection of the laws."

I still ain't seeing no Rights there. Non-whites were NEVER guaranteed any Right. That is a FACT, son. It is not an opinion; it isn't hyperbole nor a conspiracy theory. Then we guaranteed life, liberty, and property to foreigners - as a grant; a gift; from Uncle Scam. Then, the courts began working to put everyone under the purview of the 14th Amendment so we all had "equal rights." In fact, we no longer had "rights," but we had equal rights.

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

Was the Fourteenth Amendment Constitutionally Adopted? | Abbeville Institute

http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf

The Two United States and the Law

There you have it - from judges to historians and from legal researchers to seasoned legislators, the truth comes out. With unalienable Rights gone, all we can do is lament the fact that we live under an illegal government. With no "Rule of Law" you can screw the Constitution any way you like. I will rely on the FIRST Supreme Court interpretations relative to the Right - and all the other decisions interpreting the Bill of Rights. AND, when the government begins trampling the Rights of too many people, they have just cause to resist tyranny. Legal, illegal, I don't give a shit. A lot of people will own firearms long after communist loving liberals criminalize every gun part and bullet in America.

The government has the power to do some of the things you claim, but it damn well does not have the authority. IF the patriots figure out the current government is an illegal / de facto / unconstitutional government, then all bets are off.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

They are the only ones that the liberals want to disarm. That leaves NOBODY to insure the security of a FREE STATE. Everybody who could repel a tyrannical government would be working FOR the government if it went your way.

We have a Second Amendment. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well. We should have no security problems in our free States.

What idiocy! Just because someone owns a gun makes them no more a gun lover than the guy with a hammer he needs is a hammer lover. What absolute idiocy,dannyboy. You're topping yourself.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

That, dannyboy, is how you regulate a militia.

maybe, in right wing fantasy.

this is the common law for the common defense:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

They are the only ones that the liberals want to disarm. That leaves NOBODY to insure the security of a FREE STATE. Everybody who could repel a tyrannical government would be working FOR the government if it went your way.

We have a Second Amendment. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well. We should have no security problems in our free States.

What idiocy! Just because someone owns a gun makes them no more a gun lover than the guy with a hammer he needs is a hammer lover. What absolute idiocy,dannyboy. You're topping yourself.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

That, dannyboy, is how you regulate a militia.

maybe, in right wing fantasy.

this is the common law for the common defense:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

WTF does that "right wing fantasy" mean dannyboy? You manufacture some of the worst communist horseshit lines that simply don't take - even among your fellow travelers. WTF is a right wing fantasy? What's a fantasy about what a founder says? Are you saying the founders were delusional? OR you think communism is going to rule and the constitutionalists will some day be kissing your ass?

anybody can string words together.

 

[danielpalos]

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people 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 article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
-Patrick Henry, Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

“(C)onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular States, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.”
-Roger Sherman, Debates on 1790 Militia Act

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” —Alexander Hamilton

"the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure." Thomas Jefferson in a 1787 letter to William Stephens

So, the author of the Declaration of Independence, the father of the Constitution and a host of other founders / framers and legal authorities have weighed in on the Right to keep and bear Arms. I guess they are all a "right wing fantasy????"

lol. our federal Constitution is very well expressed and not implied in any fantastical, right wing way.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people 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 article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
-Patrick Henry, Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

“(C)onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular States, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.”
-Roger Sherman, Debates on 1790 Militia Act

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” —Alexander Hamilton

"the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure." Thomas Jefferson in a 1787 letter to William Stephens

So, the author of the Declaration of Independence, the father of the Constitution and a host of other founders / framers and legal authorities have weighed in on the Right to keep and bear Arms. I guess they are all a "right wing fantasy????"

lol. our federal Constitution is very well expressed and not implied in any fantastical, right wing way.

YOU NEED SOME NEW MATERIAL

 

[Porter Rockwell]

They are the only ones that the liberals want to disarm. That leaves NOBODY to insure the security of a FREE STATE. Everybody who could repel a tyrannical government would be working FOR the government if it went your way.

We have a Second Amendment. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well. We should have no security problems in our free States.

What idiocy! Just because someone owns a gun makes them no more a gun lover than the guy with a hammer he needs is a hammer lover. What absolute idiocy,dannyboy. You're topping yourself.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

That, dannyboy, is how you regulate a militia.

maybe, in right wing fantasy.

this is the common law for the common defense:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

They are the only ones that the liberals want to disarm. That leaves NOBODY to insure the security of a FREE STATE. Everybody who could repel a tyrannical government would be working FOR the government if it went your way.

We have a Second Amendment. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well. We should have no security problems in our free States.

What idiocy! Just because someone owns a gun makes them no more a gun lover than the guy with a hammer he needs is a hammer lover. What absolute idiocy,dannyboy. You're topping yourself.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

That, dannyboy, is how you regulate a militia.

maybe, in right wing fantasy.

this is the common law for the common defense:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

WTF does that "right wing fantasy" mean dannyboy? You manufacture some of the worst communist horseshit lines that simply don't take - even among your fellow travelers. WTF is a right wing fantasy? What's a fantasy about what a founder says? Are you saying the founders were delusional? OR you think communism is going to rule and the constitutionalists will some day be kissing your ass?

anybody can string words together.

dannyboy, in all your posts, I realize that what you're saying is obvious. You string words together and they make no sense. Do you have a point?

 

[danielpalos]

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people 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 article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
-Patrick Henry, Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

“(C)onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular States, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.”
-Roger Sherman, Debates on 1790 Militia Act

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” —Alexander Hamilton

"the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure." Thomas Jefferson in a 1787 letter to William Stephens

So, the author of the Declaration of Independence, the father of the Constitution and a host of other founders / framers and legal authorities have weighed in on the Right to keep and bear Arms. I guess they are all a "right wing fantasy????"

lol. our federal Constitution is very well expressed and not implied in any fantastical, right wing way.

YOU NEED SOME NEW MATERIAL

You need to come of with valid arguments. We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people 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 article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
-Patrick Henry, Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

“(C)onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular States, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.”
-Roger Sherman, Debates on 1790 Militia Act

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” —Alexander Hamilton

"the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure." Thomas Jefferson in a 1787 letter to William Stephens

So, the author of the Declaration of Independence, the father of the Constitution and a host of other founders / framers and legal authorities have weighed in on the Right to keep and bear Arms. I guess they are all a "right wing fantasy????"

lol. our federal Constitution is very well expressed and not implied in any fantastical, right wing way.

YOU NEED SOME NEW MATERIAL

You need to come of with valid arguments. We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

That made no sense at all in English, dannyboy. If you're challenging the validity of the arguments, they were upheld in the courts until an illegal act separated us from the constitutional Republic promised in Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution.

Maybe it's YOU that needs to get his head out the left's ass, quit sniffing that pungent aroma and say something valid, provable, and honest.

And for crying out fucking loud YOU NEED SOME NEW MATERIAL. Even people that agree with you are embarrassed by your posts. IF there is such a thing as a right wing fantasy, you feed it and keep them in power. Nobody wants the burden of trying to explain the horseshit that you post.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

i disagree and consider that the 2nd adm was written when one has what..a single shot musket loader not ak whatevers....the founding fathers could not foreseen what the 2nd adm would become and the weapons that would be rationalized and justified under it...

The Second Amendment was written when there were ten times the number of Cannon in private hands as there were in Military possession. Seriously. There were literally ten times the number of privately owned cannon in Privateers sailing under American Letters of Marque as there were in the entire US Navy. Every ship sailing was armed with cannon.

Repeating firearms were already in existence. The Puckett Gun as one well known example. Henry the 8th who predated the Revolution had a collection of rapid reloading firearms.

Benjamin Franklin who during the Revolution was in France begging support saw drawings from Leonardo Da Vinci including the sketch of the man in a Parachute. Franklin was inspired and asked in a letter to imagine how much chaos a battalion of men could cause if they were dropped behind enemy lines before a sufficient force could be raised to stop them. Benjamin Franklin, before the Revolutionary War was over, in this time, imagined a future of Paratroopers and described the events of June 6th 1944 but was so ignorant and unimaginative that he and the rest could not imagine a repeating rifle already in existence.

Are you substantially different from the Humans of the revolutionary era? If we can imagine a future like in Star Trek, what makes you think that these peasants were so dumb stupid that they couldn’t imagine a future that was already coming into existence.

Percussion caps came about thanks to fulminate of Mercury, which was invented in 1807. Pretty much everyone who signed onto the Constitution was still alive then.

If you do not know the history, you should refrain from speaking definitively about what people knew, imagined, or expected. Because the Founders imagined we would want to change the Constitution. They gave us the mechanism to do so. It was not the principle of Judicial Review and a interpretation. It was the Amendment. Want to get rid of the Second, do it right.

The Pucket Gun had as much of a chance of blowing up in your face as it did sending a ball down range. It was a terrible and dangerous design. It was offered to the US Navy who bought the small cannons instead because they worked and didn't blow up the shooter usually.

As for canons in the hands of Civilians, those were purchased by companies to protect their assets. You would find one per community. And only the Rich owned them. If you were to give one to a normal person, he would take it home and reforge it into something useful (they didn't give them to normal people since that lesson was learned hundreds of years ago, swords to plowshares). The cost of that single canon would be the total income of a normal person for many years. So you don't make sense here either.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Founding Fathers were very concerned that a single madman had the ability to kill many of them at a whim.

Which happens every week now, but hey...

I think they had no clue just far advanced weaponry would become. When they sat down and wrote that...they had no clue about airplanes, trains, speed cars, tanks, jets, floating artillary ships, nukes, etc. Their goal was for every citizen to be able to protect themselves..which is what most of us that own weapon(s) planned when purchasing them. That I have no problem with. But..I see no reason why deeper delving into psyche should also be utilitzed to keep the nutbars from owning them. The guy in El Paso..his dad seems to be a nutbar too. So who bought him the weapons? Him or the guy himself? Also, on the other end of the dilemma....criminals don't really care about the standards and hoops of red tape to get a gun. Black market is alive and well.

I think that you would have to believe Benjamin Franklin a dullard to think he didn't anticipate a lot of modern marvels. But, since this is about firearms, the expeditionists Lewis and Clark employed a rifle that shot a 41 caliber rifle with a 30 round capacity (though it was only effective for the first 20 rounds) so the founders / framers knew what they were saying.

A principle of Liberty or Freedom doesn't change just because technology does. That is why people can believe in cults that are dangerous and we cannot stop people from believing in things that could cause them harm: handling snakes, devil worship, and a few other things come to mind.

The real deal with automatic weaponry is that today such weaponry is so antiquated, many people can build their own weapons at home, from scratch. Your time and effort would be better spent worrying about preventing criminals and people who pose a danger to themselves and others from running amok in a free society

OH, you mean the Lewis's Air Gun. Yes, it had 20 rounds in a tube. But for each shot, it took hundreds of pumps to get the air pressure up to fire it once. You seem to have left those parts out. It had nothing to do with the firearms getting to where they ended up by the middle of the 1800s. But your Red Ryder does owe it's roots to it though.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The Founding Fathers were very concerned that a single madman had the ability to kill many of them at a whim.

Which happens every week now, but hey...

I think they had no clue just far advanced weaponry would become. When they sat down and wrote that...they had no clue about airplanes, trains, speed cars, tanks, jets, floating artillary ships, nukes, etc. Their goal was for every citizen to be able to protect themselves..which is what most of us that own weapon(s) planned when purchasing them. That I have no problem with. But..I see no reason why deeper delving into psyche should also be utilitzed to keep the nutbars from owning them. The guy in El Paso..his dad seems to be a nutbar too. So who bought him the weapons? Him or the guy himself? Also, on the other end of the dilemma....criminals don't really care about the standards and hoops of red tape to get a gun. Black market is alive and well.

I think that you would have to believe Benjamin Franklin a dullard to think he didn't anticipate a lot of modern marvels. But, since this is about firearms, the expeditionists Lewis and Clark employed a rifle that shot a 41 caliber rifle with a 30 round capacity (though it was only effective for the first 20 rounds) so the founders / framers knew what they were saying.

A principle of Liberty or Freedom doesn't change just because technology does. That is why people can believe in cults that are dangerous and we cannot stop people from believing in things that could cause them harm: handling snakes, devil worship, and a few other things come to mind.

The real deal with automatic weaponry is that today such weaponry is so antiquated, many people can build their own weapons at home, from scratch. Your time and effort would be better spent worrying about preventing criminals and people who pose a danger to themselves and others from running amok in a free society

OH, you mean the Lewis's Air Gun. Yes, it had 20 rounds in a tube. But for each shot, it took hundreds of pumps to get the air pressure up to fire it once. You seem to have left those parts out. It had nothing to do with the firearms getting to where they ended up by the middle of the 1800s. But your Red Ryder does owe it's roots to it though.

No, sorry, you pump it once and shoot. It had a 30 shot capacity, but lost effective range in 20 rounds. Regardless, the point is, and cannot be disputed, the founders / framers were pretty up to date on the newest technologies (especially Benjamin Franklin, an inventor himself.)

They knew what was possible. FWIW:

"While the detachable air reservoir was capable of around 30 shots, it took nearly 1,500 strokes of a hand pump to fill those reservoirs."

Girandoni air rifle - Wikipedia