I just dont see it....

[Intense]

And from what I read here everyone here feels the same way. How in the hell can America stand with the division we now have?
I know I will never stand for a gun ban. I know the current path we are on will destroy our country considering all the countries that have gone down the road we are now traveling have either failed or are on the brink of collapse. Am I supposed to sit here and watch my country die? At what point do things explode?
I have never felt the anger I now have towards the left,nor have I felt the anger directed at me for what I stand for.

So what the hell are we supposed to do when neither side is willing to budge,because I know there are certain things I will not stand for....PERIOD.

I fear for the republic.

Unless Individual Liberty is restored, and Government restrained, the Republic is already gone. Tyranny, by any name, is what it is. No construct is of greater value than it's purpose, when it violates that purpose, it is it's own worst enemy. The current course ain't pretty.

I would ask any Statist " How can Utopia exist without Government and Private Entities, Not having Enumerated Power over the control of Others, be it action, word, or thought, be it property, providence, or even will???

Rules for the sake of having rules V.S. Rules for the sake of the well being of the governed, by the acknowledgement and consent of the governed.

There is no substitute or imitation for Just Action, Just Cause, that compares. Either you get it, or you don't. When stupidity accompanies power, too many suffer.

 

[bodecea]

.

The only way this gets fixed (without some kind of catastrophe as a motivation) is if our "leaders" actually lead.

People of significant national stature, preferably from each end of the spectrum, are going to have to demonstrate real bravery and denounce the division pimps and radicals on their end in the name of working together with the other side to deal with our nearly insurmountable problems.

This is theoretical only, of course, because I don't see anyone out there with both the stature and the bravery to do this.

.

of course you are right, but who would those leaders be? got any names? I see a few on the right, but can you name one fair minded leader on the left?

Name those few on the Right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The solution will come from neither far right or far left.

It must come from the mainstream of right of center to left of center: that is where derives the wealth and talent and industry of America.

yes, and any time a person like that steps up. he or she is crucified by the left wing media. Until we fix the media, nothing will change.

Stop the hyper partisanship. The far right excoriates just as much the far left does.

You are not going to control the media, period.

It is time to defend the center against the extremes.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You are wrong. The left has said many times that they wish to ban guns. Whether or not it happens is beside the point they are still breeding anger. If it's not what they want why would Sideshow Biden try and act like the 2nd was about hunting when everyone knows it's not?

I am the Left and I have no intention of asking for any gun ban....I have guns myself. I laugh everything you frightened little chicken littles start clutching your pearls and crying.

I went out this morning looking for some 38 special ammo. not one gun store had any. one told me they had some at 7am but it was gone by 8am. all of the on-line ammo guys are sold out.

should have bought some remington stock.

NRA mission accomplished.

 

[bendog]

The solution will come from neither far right or far left.

It must come from the mainstream of right of center to left of center: that is where derives the wealth and talent and industry of America.

yes, and any time a person like that steps up. he or she is crucified by the left wing media. Until we fix the media, nothing will change.

Stop the hyper partisanship. The far right excoriates just as much the far left does.

You are not going to control the media, period.

It is time to defend the center against the extremes.

And in this case, it appears Toomey is a fair minded leader from the right. Nobody's confiscating any guns. We all keep what we have. If you want another gun, and if your greating mental health professional thinks you pose a danger to yourself or others, then there's a delay in which you have a hearing to dissuade that notion.

kids can be kicked out of school by ONE adminstrtor for 72 hours if the admin says they pose a danger. If you've been treated for an STD, you probably don't get a marriage liscense until there's no doubt you got rid of it ... without passing it on. on and on .....

 

[Foxfyre]

I gave the link to support my argument Jake. Where is yours?

Daniel J. Schultz is a practicing attorney in Los Angeles and President of LSAS, a nationwide network of pro-right to keep and bear arms attorneys.

Yup, with an impeccable record and reputation so far as I can tell which is why he is prominently featured on many legal sites including 'Lectric Law Library", "Legalzoom.com" and others and is invited to share his perspective on various subjects including the Second Amendment. And as a practicing attorney, he is probably much more qualified to interpret the intent of the Second Amendment than is most of the present company don't you think? Most especially since Jake doesn't seem to have any way to back up his (cough) statement of 'fact'.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I gave the link to support my argument Jake. Where is yours?

Daniel J. Schultz is a practicing attorney in Los Angeles and President of LSAS, a nationwide network of pro-right to keep and bear arms attorneys.

Yup, with an impeccable record and reputation so far as I can tell which is why he is prominently featured on many legal sites including 'Lectric Law Library", "Legalzoom.com" and others and is invited to share his perspective on various subjects including the Second Amendment. And as a practicing attorney, he is probably much more qualified to interpret the intent of the Second Amendment than is most of the present company don't you think? Most especially since Jake doesn't seem to have any way to back up his (cough) statement of 'fact'.

You don't impress me by linking to other blowhard's opinion pieces as "evidence".

Was there a standing army in the United States at the time that the 2nd Amendment was ratified?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I gave the link to support my argument Jake. Where is yours?

Daniel J. Schultz is a practicing attorney in Los Angeles and President of LSAS, a nationwide network of pro-right to keep and bear arms attorneys.

Yup, with an impeccable record and reputation so far as I can tell which is why he is prominently featured on many legal sites including 'Lectric Law Library", "Legalzoom.com" and others and is invited to share his perspective on various subjects including the Second Amendment. And as a practicing attorney, he is probably much more qualified to interpret the intent of the Second Amendment than is most of the present company don't you think? Most especially since Jake doesn't seem to have any way to back up his (cough) statement of 'fact'.

Doesn't mean a thing. He is no more respected by mainstream historians, etc, than is David Barton. Schultz's opinion is not fact, only opinion, a slanted one and off the mark.

 

[lynn63]

I have a question for all of you here, if a natural disaster hit your state and it would take days for help to arrive from the government, would you want the right to own a gun and be happy that you lived in a state that wasn't hell bent of taking that right from you?

I certainly would.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I have a gun. I have that right. Why the stupid question?

 

[JakeStarkey]

My state is not trying to take my guns away, neither is the Fed.

What is wrong with you folks?

 

[bendog]

I have a question for all of you here, if a natural disaster hit your state and it would take days for help to arrive from the government, would you want the right to own a gun and be happy that you lived in a state that wasn't hell bent of taking that right from you?

I certainly would.

Background checks have no effect on me owning the guns I own. The only negative effect on me is that if I purchase another, most likely it'll cost me a little more. And there's the possible positive effect of some mentally ill person not getting a firearm and killing me or a loved one with it.

 

[BlindBoo]

The 2nd isn't about the right to own a shotgun. It's about the right to own a weapon to keep gov in check. And a shotgun ain't gonna do it. Neither is a handgun.
Seems to me they want to get rid of the guns that can kill at a distance efficiently.
Now why would they want to do that?
It's all about control of the population.

No I think it was about arming a mobile citizen fighting force to protect the nation in case of a invasion, while the federal government raised an offical Army.

A dedicated reading of the founding documents does not support your theory, however. On the contrary, the PRIMARY purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide the people a means of controlling their own government should it overstep the restrictions the Constitution put on it.

The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.

To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: 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. . . .

. . . .It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.

In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.

The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

That is a very selective reading of some of the founding documents.

For example: First

the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support." ​

Then to back that up he uses arguments about ratifying the Constitution not the Second Amendment.

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."​

Obviously talking up the point of protection from a Standing Army built right in. (which, you've got to admit, doesn't really apply today does it?)

Then he switches back to the meaning of the 2nd with an article by Tench Coxe to enforce the notion that the overridng principle was a check upon the national government's standing army.

I'm still going with it was more about national securty first, then personal security. Never about keeping a check on a standing army.

 

[Foxfyre]

Daniel J. Schultz is a practicing attorney in Los Angeles and President of LSAS, a nationwide network of pro-right to keep and bear arms attorneys.

Yup, with an impeccable record and reputation so far as I can tell which is why he is prominently featured on many legal sites including 'Lectric Law Library", "Legalzoom.com" and others and is invited to share his perspective on various subjects including the Second Amendment. And as a practicing attorney, he is probably much more qualified to interpret the intent of the Second Amendment than is most of the present company don't you think? Most especially since Jake doesn't seem to have any way to back up his (cough) statement of 'fact'.

You don't impress me by linking to other blowhard's opinion pieces as "evidence".

Was there a standing army in the United States at the time that the 2nd Amendment was ratified?

Well you'll have to give me something more than you don't like his opinion to justify calling him a blowhard. But then I imagine anybody to the right of Chairman Mao is a blowhard to some of you. And Jake who demands links from everybody but won't provide one himself when requested has no credibility on this at all.

But perhaps you consider the 'Lectric Law Library" and 'LegalZoom to be bogus legal authorities who would invite just any old blowhard to provide commentary to annoy you. Makes me wonder just what authorities outside of Daily Kos or other "I hate everybody who isn't far left' sites you would accept as authoritative.

But in answer to your question, yes, the US government did retain some of the Continental Army though most of it was disbanded and sent hom after the Revolutionary War. The U.S. Army to this day consideres its founding as 1775 when the Continental Army was formed. The Bill of Rights was ratified I believe in 1791 (working from memory here.) However, the original Constitution, ratified in 1788, clearly authorized Congress to raise and pay an army as necessary.

Most of the Founders however were reluctant for the federal government to maintain a standing army because of the risk of it being used to take control of the country and return us to a monarchy or other authoritarian form of government.

Congress subscribed to the prevailing view that the first line of defense should be a "well-regulated and disciplined militia sufficiently armed and accoutered." Its reluctance to create a standing army was understandable; a permanent army would be a heavy expense, and it would complicate the struggle between those who wanted a strong national government and those who preferred the existing loose federation of states.

Further, the recent threats of the Continental officers strengthened the popular fear that a standing army might be used to coerce the states or become an instrument of despotism.

General Washington, to whom Hamilton's committee turned first for advice, echoed the prevailing view. He pointed out that a large standing army in time of peace had always been considered "dangerous to the liberties of a country" and that the nation was "too poor to maintain a standing army adequate to our defense."
Chapter 5: The Formative Years, 1783-1812

 

[JakeStarkey]

And from Foxfyre's source (a good one, by the by), "The committee thereupon revised its plan, recommending an even larger army that it hoped to provide at less expense by decreasing the pay of the regimental staff officers and subalterns. Washington when asked admitted that detached service along the frontiers and coasts would probably require more men than he had proposed, but he disagreed that a larger establishment could be provided more economically than the one he had recommended. A considerable number of the delegates to Congress had similar misgivings, and when the committee presented its revised report on October 23, Congress refused to accept it. During the winter of 1783 the matter rested. Under the Articles of Confederation an affirmative vote of the representatives of nine states was required for the exercise of certain important powers, including military matters".

One, armies cost.

Two, defending frontiers was not inexpensive.

Three, the Articles of Confederation Congress was not adequate to making such important decisions.

And eleven years later, "The President first exercised his authority to employ militia for suppressing insurrection and executing the laws of Congress in 1794 when Washington sent a large force of militia under Maj. Gen. Henry Lee into western Pennsylvania during the Whiskey Rebellion. Lee encountered no resistance. As a show of force, the demonstration was impressive; as an indication of the military value of the militia in an emergency, it was inconclusive."

One, the president was quite willing to use the militia to suppress (citizen) insurrection and execute the laws against said citizens.

Two, the value of the militia remained in doubt.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yup, with an impeccable record and reputation so far as I can tell which is why he is prominently featured on many legal sites including 'Lectric Law Library", "Legalzoom.com" and others and is invited to share his perspective on various subjects including the Second Amendment. And as a practicing attorney, he is probably much more qualified to interpret the intent of the Second Amendment than is most of the present company don't you think? Most especially since Jake doesn't seem to have any way to back up his (cough) statement of 'fact'.

You don't impress me by linking to other blowhard's opinion pieces as "evidence".

Was there a standing army in the United States at the time that the 2nd Amendment was ratified?

Well you'll have to give me something more than you don't like his opinion to justify calling him a blowhard. But then I imagine anybody to the right of Chairman Mao is a blowhard to some of you. And Jake who demands links from everybody but won't provide one himself when requested has no credibility on this at all.

But perhaps you consider the 'Lectric Law Library" and 'LegalZoom to be bogus legal authorities who would invite just any old blowhard to provide commentary to annoy you. Makes me wonder just what authorities outside of Daily Kos or other "I hate everybody who isn't far left' sites you would accept as authoritative.

But in answer to your question, yes, the US government did retain some of the Continental Army though most of it was disbanded and sent hom after the Revolutionary War. The U.S. Army to this day consideres its founding as 1775 when the Continental Army was formed. The Bill of Rights was ratified I believe in 1791 (working from memory here.) However, the original Constitution, ratified in 1788, clearly authorized Congress to raise and pay an army as necessary.

Most of the Founders however were reluctant for the federal government to maintain a standing army because of the risk of it being used to take control of the country and return us to a monarchy or other authoritarian form of government.

Congress subscribed to the prevailing view that the first line of defense should be a "well-regulated and disciplined militia sufficiently armed and accoutered." Its reluctance to create a standing army was understandable; a permanent army would be a heavy expense, and it would complicate the struggle between those who wanted a strong national government and those who preferred the existing loose federation of states.

Further, the recent threats of the Continental officers strengthened the popular fear that a standing army might be used to coerce the states or become an instrument of despotism.

General Washington, to whom Hamilton's committee turned first for advice, echoed the prevailing view. He pointed out that a large standing army in time of peace had always been considered "dangerous to the liberties of a country" and that the nation was "too poor to maintain a standing army adequate to our defense."
Chapter 5: The Formative Years, 1783-1812

The 2nd was a way to avoid a standing army.

Have you ever seen me reference the Daily KOS?

Legalzoom? Are you a serious person?

 

[Foxfyre]

No I think it was about arming a mobile citizen fighting force to protect the nation in case of a invasion, while the federal government raised an offical Army.

A dedicated reading of the founding documents does not support your theory, however. On the contrary, the PRIMARY purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide the people a means of controlling their own government should it overstep the restrictions the Constitution put on it.

The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.

To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: 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. . . .

. . . .It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.

In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.

The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

That is a very selective reading of some of the founding documents.

For example: First

the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support." ​

Then to back that up he uses arguments about ratifying the Constitution not the Second Amendment.

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."​

Obviously talking up the point of protection from a Standing Army built right in. (which, you've got to admit, doesn't really apply today does it?)

Then he switches back to the meaning of the 2nd with an article by Tench Coxe to enforce the notion that the overridng principle was a check upon the national government's standing army.

I'm still going with it was more about national securty first, then personal security. Never about keeping a check on a standing army.

And you would be wrong as the Founders, knew that if attacked by foreign powers, there needed to be a central command to coordinate the resistance force. Thus they did allow a provision in the Constitution to raise an army if necessary. But as I have subsequently documented, they also strongly feared the misuse of that same army by an unscrupulous would be dictator. Thus they never intended the federal government to have authority over the militias which would be every citizen of the USA who had a dualing pistol or hunting musket or knife or sword or any other weapon at his disposal to use. Likely more than a few dragged a cannon home for a souvenir.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course the federal government expected, intended, and did indeed, in national exigencies, such as the Whiskey Rebellion, although limited to only one state, have authority over the militia.

Read your own source for that intent and action.

 

[BlindBoo]

A dedicated reading of the founding documents does not support your theory, however. On the contrary, the PRIMARY purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide the people a means of controlling their own government should it overstep the restrictions the Constitution put on it.



The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

That is a very selective reading of some of the founding documents.

For example: First

the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support." ​

Then to back that up he uses arguments about ratifying the Constitution not the Second Amendment.

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."​

Obviously talking up the point of protection from a Standing Army built right in. (which, you've got to admit, doesn't really apply today does it?)

Then he switches back to the meaning of the 2nd with an article by Tench Coxe to enforce the notion that the overridng principle was a check upon the national government's standing army.

I'm still going with it was more about national securty first, then personal security. Never about keeping a check on a standing army.

And you would be wrong as the Founders, knew that if attacked by foreign powers, there needed to be a central command to coordinate the resistance force. Thus they did allow a provision in the Constitution to raise an army if necessary. But as I have subsequently documented, they also strongly feared the misuse of that same army by an unscrupulous would be dictator. Thus they never intended the federal government to have authority over the militias which would be every citizen of the USA who had a dualing pistol or hunting musket or knife or sword or any other weapon at his disposal to use. Likely more than a few dragged a cannon home for a souvenir.

???

Congress:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The President:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

 

[Borillar]

Democrats do not understand the difference between partisanship and principle.

Of course we understand the way the right defines things: It's partisanship when a Democrat does something but it is principle when a Republican does the same thing.