Metro Jacksonville

This has been really quiet in the news.  Comments?



Floyd Lee Corkins charged in Family Research Council shooting
Family Research Council security guard shot: A security guard a was shot and wounded after a scuffle with a man who expressed disagreement with the group’s conservative views.

The man authorities say was angry with the conservative stance of the Family Research Council and shot the group’s unarmed security guard in a downtown D.C. office was ordered by a judge Thursday to undergo a mental evaluation.

An FBI affidavit quotes 28-year-old Floyd Lee Corkins II of Herndon telling the guard, “I don’t like your politics” as he pulled a 9mm Sig Sauer pistol from a backpack he had carried with him on Metrorail from East Falls Church.

An armed man walked into the Washington headquarters of a conservative Christian lobbying group Wednesday and was confronted by a security guard, whom he shot in the arm before the guard and others wrestled him to the ground, authorities said.

D.C. police said that Corkins shot the guard, Leonardo R. Johnson, 46, once in the arm and that Johnson, though wounded, helped subdue the suspect and wrestle the gun from him in the building’s lobby on G Street NW.

In his bag, court documents say, police found 50 rounds of ammunition and 15 sandwiches from Chick-fil-A, which combined with the suspect’s statement added a political dimension to the shooting.

The head of the Atlanta-based fast-food chain has spoken out against same-sex marriage, a stance embraced by the Family Research Council. Corkins had been volunteering at a U Street NW support center for the gay community.

On Thursday, D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier and the head of the FBI’s District field office visited Johnson’s 72-year-old mother and 102-year-old grandmother at their house in Southeast Washington, and they credited him with preventing a tragedy.

In an interview, Virginia Johnson said she was proud of her son for subduing the gunman and “so happy” to hear the District’s police chief call him a hero.

“I’m sorry for what happened and the way he got hurt,” Virginia Johnson said. She spoke with her son when he called from a hospital moments after she saw news of the shooting on television newscasts.

“Yes, I’d say he was a hero,” she said.

Meanwhile, in U.S. District Court, prosecutors charged Corkins with assault with intent to kill while armed and interstate transportation of a firearm and ammunition. Assistant U.S. Attorney George P. Varghese requested a 24-hour mental evaluation of Corkins, which was granted by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay.

Corkins appeared in a white prison jumpsuit, walking into the courtroom quietly between two U.S. marshals. His right eye was blackened and swollen. As Kay outlined the charges against him, he stood and twirled his thumbs with his hands behind his back.

Kay asked Corkins whether he had enough money to pay for an attorney; he said he did not. “I have about $300,” Corkins said in a soft, clear voice.

During the proceedings, which lasted about 20 minutes, the judge ordered Corkins held without bond until a hearing scheduled for next Friday.

At a news conference Thursday, the president of the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins, condemned what he called “reckless rhetoric” that labels his organization a “hate group,” saying it incited the shooting.

The Family Research Council’s Web site says it deals in issues of faith, family and freedom; opposes abortion and euthanasia; and considers homosexuality a sin. Perkins told reporters that his group might not have been the only target. But he and his spokesmen declined to elaborate.

“I think maybe, going forward, you may find out more information that we may not have been the only one,” Perkins said in response to a question about why his group was targeted.

Lanier declined to comment on the statement, as did an FBI spokesman, Andrew Ames.

An armed man walked into the Washington headquarters of a conservative Christian lobbying group Wednesday and was confronted by a security guard, whom he shot in the arm before the guard and others wrestled him to the ground, authorities said.

In support of the federal charges, authorities said the gun and ammunition were transported across state lines. Police said they found Corkins’s Dodge Neon parked at the East Falls Church Metro station.

No one answered the door at Corkins’s home Thursday. The FBI affidavit says agents interviewed Corkins’s parents, who said their son “has strong opinions with respect to those he believes do not treat homosexuals in a fair manner.”

FBI officials have not commented on a possible motive in the shooting.

Perkins said he visited Johnson shortly after he emerged from surgery after midnight Wednesday and reported him groggy but in good spirits.

“This hero business is hard work,” Perkins said Johnson told him.

He said Johnson was more than a guard and was also in charge of building services. Not only did he staff the lobby, he meet with top officials and was briefed on threats and planned protests.

Perkins said Johnson, at the time of the confrontation, was unarmed and was wearing a suit, not a uniform.

Joe Carter, a senior editor of Action Institute, a Michigan-based group that focuses on the economy from a Christian perspective, said he knew Johnson from working at the Family Research Council from 2006 to 2008.

“He was the guy who quietly took care of things,” Carter said.“If someone came into the lobby to do something, they weren’t going to get past Leo.”

Johnson’s mother said she saw the story unfold on TV news and knew even before his name became public that it was her son who had been shot. By the time he called her from the hospital, Virginia Johnson said, “I was crying. I was upset. He was trying to calm me down.”

Virginia Johnson said her son, her only child, graduated from Ballou High School in Southeast and went into the security business. “He’s just a good person who tried to help people and never got into trouble,” she said.

In an interview with WJLA-TV (Channel 7), Leonardo Johnson said from his hospital room that Corkins shot him without warning and that he tackled Corkins without realizing that he had been shot. “I didn’t feel any pain,” he told the station. “I felt my arm snap back so I knew I was hit, but I didn’t feel any pain. . . . Although I didn’t want to get shot, nobody wants to get shot, I feel that God put me in a position to be there at that time.”

At the news conference, Perkins singled out the Southern Poverty Law Center for putting his organization on a list of hate groups, saying that gave the gunman “a license to shoot an unarmed man,” and he urged that the law center be “held accountable for their reckless use of terminology.”

The law center, in a statement, called the accusation outrageous and said the Family Research Council was ”seeking an opportunity to score points” by using the shooting for political purposes.



Mike DeBonis, Justin Jouvenal and Allison Klein contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/mother-of-security-guard-shot-in-dc-happy-to-hear-him-called-hero/2012/08/16/531ed060-e7a1-11e1-8487-64e4b2a79ba8_story_1.html

No.  Have any democrat talking points to discuss?  Or are the instructions to just be quiet about this?

This was yet another case of a Zealot slipping a cog and doing no favors for his "cause."
This guy was no better than the jerks that bomb abortion clinics.  There are ways to protest, this level of violence is not it. 
As far as the gun control issue - DC has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation - Criminals don't adhere to the laws... go figure?

DC's former ban on firearms was struck down by SCOTUS 3 years ago, you can own firearms there legally now. With that said, the results are certainly different with a run of the mill pistol instead of assault weapons. One guy got shot and lived.

Were the fifteen Chick-fil-A sandwiches some sort of political statement?  Maybe he didn't know what the Family Research Council supported and got things backward.

Quote from: NotNow on August 19, 2012, 11:02:56 PM
No.  Have any democrat talking points to discuss?  Or are the instructions to just be quiet about this?

Most law enforcement management types do support some form of gun control simply because they think that it may reduce lethal violence directed at their personnel.

But not not now. He enjoys the swashbuckling excitement of street gun violence  not now I didn't know you had a thrill seeker personality type. 

If guns had never been invented, baseball bats would have been used. In a world without guns but populated by the same people, kitchen knifes would be the weapon of choice, in an advanced society without guns antifreeze would have been slipped into the drinking fountain... So there you have it, let's control baseball bats, knifes and antifreeze and the world will be peaceful.

Criminals and the criminally insane will always find a way to hurt, maim or kill other people and no amount of 'law and order' is going to stop them from their deed.

Fact is you can take the deadliest assault rifle in the world and lay it on a rock and if were possible to return to that rock in 10,000 years, the remains of that rifle would still be laying there.

Quote from: NotNow on August 19, 2012, 11:02:56 PM
No.  Have any democrat talking points to discuss?  Or are the instructions to just be quiet about this?

Well it's obviously a conspiracy by the evil left wing media backed by godless Hollywood.
I saw the report on both local and National news though.
and of course the internet.

Oh and speaking of godless Hollywood, the right should love them. They advocate guns and violence on a daily basis. You would think Teddy Nuge and all his wacko gun lovers would be praising them.

And speaking of Teddy Nuge, I should have know when I saw him in concert wearing a chicken outfit, or he was covered with feathers or something that the guy was some kind of nut bag.

The focus on weapons rather then actions and the Ill's of modern society is part of the problem here. If the guy with a rock wanted to kill someone, and the guy with the machine gun didn't, there isn't any reason to run from or take on the guy with the gun. If it's the other way around, the intent to kill is exactly the same, and neither the rock nor gun took any action by themselves. It's killers that kill, and having law abiding citizens give up their guns won't change that. If we had 'rock control' and gathered every rock we could find behind closed doors, someone would use a club.

At it's very best, gun control will only remove guns from peaceful, law abiding citizens. Can't you just imagine Bonnie and Clyde showing up at the local police station and handing in their guns because of some new law? Absolute control of firearms will only result in more violence as it would create a huge black-market, in the end being about as effective as prohibition or marijuana laws.

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 09:31:42 AM
so ock, in a crowded room, would you prefer to take on a guy with a rock or a guy with a submachine gun?

Stephen,  submachines guns are very illegal, unless the owner has shelled out thousands to obtain one of the few legal examples.  So not sure how that applies to your argument.  I don't see where Ock mentioned a rock used as a weapon either.

Quote from: NotNow on August 19, 2012, 08:58:01 PM
This has been really quiet in the news.  Comments?

Quiet?  It was on the front page of the Washington Post the next day, and they've published 14 other articles since then.

The New York Times also covered it.

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 01:27:06 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 10:14:55 AM

Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 20, 2012, 09:45:18 AM
The focus on weapons rather then actions and the Ill's of modern society is part of the problem here. If the guy with a rock wanted to kill someone, and the guy with the machine gun didn't, there isn't any reason to run from or take on the guy with the gun. If it's the other way around, the intent to kill is exactly the same, and neither the rock nor gun took any action by themselves. It's killers that kill, and having law abiding citizens give up their guns won't change that. If we had 'rock control' and gathered every rock we could find behind closed doors, someone would use a club.

At it's very best, gun control will only remove guns from peaceful, law abiding citizens. Can't you just imagine Bonnie and Clyde showing up at the local police station and handing in their guns because of some new law? Absolute control of firearms will only result in more violence as it would create a huge black-market, in the end being about as effective as prohibition or marijuana laws.

im sorry, i didnt hear the answer to that question?

it seems pretty simple:

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 09:31:42 AM
so ock, in a crowded room, would you prefer to take on a guy with a rock or a guy with a submachine gun?

its so quiet in here guys.

Why doesnt anyone want to answer this question?

Is it magic?

Why do we need to "take somebody on"?  Is there a unstable person or criminal in the room?

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 01:27:06 PM
its so quiet in here guys.

Why doesnt anyone want to answer this question?

Is it magic?

First I'd take on the guy with the rock, damn the consequences, fire the torpedos.  When gun-toting guy comes over to see what the hell is going on, I'll reach under my coat for my (legal) concealed Glock sitting nicely in it's holster, fire a single shot into gtg's left knee at point blank range, grab his gun off of the floor point both the pistol and the rifle in the air, let out a shrill, apache war cry and run out of the back door into my waiting batmobile.

Question answered.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 20, 2012, 09:27:25 AM
If guns had never been invented, baseball bats would have been used. In a world without guns but populated by the same people, kitchen knifes would be the weapon of choice, in an advanced society without guns antifreeze would have been slipped into the drinking fountain... So there you have it, let's control baseball bats, knifes and antifreeze and the world will be peaceful.

Criminals and the criminally insane will always find a way to hurt, maim or kill other people and no amount of 'law and order' is going to stop them from their deed.

Fact is you can take the deadliest assault rifle in the world and lay it on a rock and if were possible to return to that rock in 10,000 years, the remains of that rifle would still be laying there.

+1

Drunk drivers kill WAY more people than nuts with guns; shall we ban automobiles, or shall we just ban alcohol?!? 

Quote from: Pinky on August 20, 2012, 01:59:40 PM
+1

Drunk drivers kill WAY more people than nuts with guns; shall we ban automobiles, or shall we just ban alcohol?!?

[SARCASM ALERT]

Neither.  You just make it illegal to drive an automobile after drinking alcohol, sheesh, that will definitely reduce the numbers of drunk driving accidents.  ::)

We all seem to be on the same page with regards to the outrages of these mass shootings.  However the solutions always seem to focus on the weapon... and the limits many wish to place on the second amendment.  Perhaps we need to expand the conversation to include some of the other Bill of Rights.

We already know that certain restrictions to various rights are considered constitutional.  Certain aspects of gun controls have been used by various states and municipalities and have been legally vetted.  The same holds true for certain aspects of the first amendment.  Hate speech can be prosecuted... so can libel, slander, and graffiti as a few examples.  Maybe we should look at the role of violent (armed) video games (just an example).  We have banned the advertisement of tobacco... perhaps we could ban ads for guns.  Perhaps Freedom to assemble peacefully should be tightened up... restricting so called "hate groups"(NRA?)

The third amendment bans the quartering of soldiers in your home.  Perhaps that could be loosened
up to allow small garrisons of soldiers in every neighborhood... you know... to keep the peace.

The fourth amendment is ripe for some restricting.  In the matter of guns... perhaps we should loosen the ability of the government to enter into your house to search for offending weapons.

Hmm... the fifth amendment... Got it!  In cases of gun violence we could suspend double jeopardy, due process... and confiscate all the offenders properties.

I could go on but you get the point.  Simply restricting the second amendment rights of people is not doing the job.  We need a holistic approach that looks at the entire Bill of Rights and create restrictions accordingly to end this madness




Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 03:51:34 PM
so which guy would you rather have to deal with, in a crowded room, with your wife and family present, bridge troll?  The guy armed with a rock or the guy armed with a sub machine gun?

Why is this question so hard for any of you guys to answer?

A rock Stephen.  Were any of the recent crimes commited with a sub machine gun?  Just how many crimes are commited with sub machine guns?

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 03:53:28 PM
Since you are going to go Constitutional on the subject, Bridge Troll, where in the Constitution does it even mention guns?

Im not "going constitutional".  I am expanding the discussion.  Short of banning weapons... this issue is not going to go away.  Lets look at other factors... like our violent society... violent movies... violent games... violent music... violent rhetoric.  We may be short sighted limiting the discussion to the second amendment.

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 03:51:34 PM
so which guy would you rather have to deal with, in a crowded room, with your wife and family present, bridge troll?  The guy armed with a rock or the guy armed with a sub machine gun?

Why is this question so hard for any of you guys to answer?

The question can't be answered honestly without knowing the full geography, logistics and minute details involved. It is paramount to a question like: "You landed on the moon, and this giant bear... etc" There is simply no way to know how the situation would be handled, even a well trained and well armed squad of Navy Seals would tell you that every situation is unique and requires them to 'adapt, improvise and overcome.'

I too think the conversation is a bit nutty when the focus is on a tool and not the tool user. With a few century's of women being eaten by bears, a study was commissioned to learn why certain bears prefer women. To wit: Cushing (1983)  Reported that free-ranging polar bears detected and consumed food scent samples and used tampons, but ignored non-menstrual human blood and unused tampons. This suggests that polar bears are attracted to odors associated with menstrual blood.

Cushing, B. 1983. Responses of polar bears to human menstrual odors. International Conference on Bear Research and Management 5:270-274.

So tampons and menstrual pads are the tool that results in human death, but I think the bear carries more guilt. Bears, pads and tampons or women, which shall we legislate? Tampon control anyone?

Oh Lord, this ought to be fun!

Does the guy with the rock have a sling (David and Goliath style), a slingshot (Beaver Cleaver style) or just a wicked 105mph fastball arm (Aroldis Chapman style)?

Is the gun loaded?  Does he have the safety on?  Is his trigger finger resting on the trigger, trigger guard or along the side of the weapon?  Is he nervous & shifty or is he calm and determined?

You, Mr. Dare, have some questions to answer yourself.  Or as you happily conject towards me, It's just a dumb question.

Quote from: stephendare on August 19, 2012, 11:18:17 PM

Quote from: NotNow on August 19, 2012, 11:02:56 PM
No.  Have any democrat talking points to discuss?  Or are the instructions to just be quiet about this?

There was another shooting in America, because guns got into the wrong hands.  And in this case the victim was an uniformed police officer.

Its freaking ridiculous, but you seem to agree with this kind of shooting, so what would you like for people to say?

The victim was not a uniformed police officer.  He was an employee of the FRC dressed in a suit. 

Your statement about "agree with this kind of shooting" is just the kind of stupid crap that points out what kind of a person you are.  You are willing to say anything and attack anyone for the sake of your politics.  What a sad person you are.  You better run to the Huffington Post and see what you are supposed to say about this.

Quote from: Midway ® on August 20, 2012, 07:45:53 AM

Quote from: NotNow on August 19, 2012, 11:02:56 PM
No.  Have any democrat talking points to discuss?  Or are the instructions to just be quiet about this?

Most law enforcement management types do support some form of gun control simply because they think that it may reduce lethal violence directed at their personnel.

But not not now. He enjoys the swashbuckling excitement of street gun violence  not now I didn't know you had a thrill seeker personality type. 

Almost all of law enforcement feels exactly as I do.  We support the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.  Just like the Constitution says.

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 09:13:47 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 20, 2012, 06:12:09 AM
DC's former ban on firearms was struck down by SCOTUS 3 years ago, you can own firearms there legally now. With that said, the results are certainly different with a run of the mill pistol instead of assault weapons. One guy got shot and lived.

aint that the truth.

No.  The weapon used was the same as the Sikh Temple shooter who killed six.  The difference was a man's heroics and the opportunity he had to make the difference.

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 03:53:28 PM
Since you are going to go Constitutional on the subject, Bridge Troll, where in the Constitution does it even mention guns?

Um, yes, it does.

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 04:07:42 PM
turns out that there was a pretty famous case of an UZI being used to shoot up a whole bunch of people in 1984.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald's_massacre

But the sub machine gun is no longer legal.

Did you mention that there havent been any major crimes committed with a sub machine gun recently bridge troll?

Also, did you find the word 'gun' used in the Constitution?

A sub machine gun was not used in this shooting.  Do you even know what a sub machine gun is?  This is your chance to google.

As for your "question", I'll take on either one if they are trying to kill others.

Of course in your world, you will be fighting the sub gun with a rock, because you have given away your rights to a government.

And yes, it is a stupid question.

My take on this event is that it is another example of the violence which can occur with the extreme polarization of our politics.  When political discourse gives way to name calling and demonization (sound familiar Dare!?) then it should surprise no one when the weaker minded in our society allow themselves to over emphasize and overdramatize the arguments.  It happens on both sides of the fence. 

The answer is to demand intellectual honesty from each other.  Remain logical and factual in our arguments.  In matters that are subjective and agreement can not be reached, then, within the bounds of law and public safety, we should each live our lives as we see fit and not worry about the opinions of others.  The current climate (common on this site) of saying or doing ANYTHING to make a political point is a direct contributor to these kinds of incidents.

Translation:

Don't disagree with Notnow; he knows whats good for you.

He also knows what a uniformed police officer is, and what a sub machine gun is, and what the second amendment says, and....oh well, you get the point.

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 04:02:15 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 20, 2012, 03:54:35 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 03:51:34 PM
so which guy would you rather have to deal with, in a crowded room, with your wife and family present, bridge troll?  The guy armed with a rock or the guy armed with a sub machine gun?

Why is this question so hard for any of you guys to answer?

A rock Stephen.  Were any of the recent crimes commited with a sub machine gun?  Just how many crimes are commited with sub machine guns?

hmm.  See I would prefer a guy with a rock as well.  you know, in the theoretical. I don't know if any recently publicized crimes have been committed in America with a sub machine gun, Bridge Troll.  I will google it for you though.

While I am doing that perhaps someone else could answer the question?

I'll take a swing at it:  I'd be happy to face either, given that I (legally) carry a handgun just about everywhere I go.  Boom boom, out go the lights.  Score: Good Guys: 1, Crazy Motherf%^ker: 0.   

Next issue? 

(Oh, and when are *you* going to answer *my* question regarding drunk drivers?  Would you outlaw the automobiles, or the consumption of alcohol?  Because of course, both are found in every single case of drunk driving...)

I don't know Pinky, I kind of liked 'Tampon Control', 'Bear Control' or 'Woman Control' as a smorgasbord of choices to end the consumption of females in the polar regions.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 20, 2012, 08:27:16 PM
I don't know Pinky, I kind of liked 'Tampon Control', 'Bear Control' or 'Woman Control' as a smorgasbord of choices to end the consumption of females in the polar regions.

Yeah, that was pretty nice...   ;)

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 08:44:58 PM

Quote from: Ocklawaha on August 20, 2012, 08:27:16 PM
I don't know Pinky, I kind of liked 'Tampon Control', 'Bear Control' or 'Woman Control' as a smorgasbord of choices to end the consumption of females in the polar regions.

still cant answer the question ock?  Thats not very characteristic of you.

I have Stephen, it's an unanswerable question as in any such situation (as others have loudly pointed out) there are just too many variables to know exactly which is the correct course of action without being on scene to size it up.

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 08:33:26 PM

Quote from: NotNow on August 20, 2012, 07:17:53 PM
My take on this event is that it is another example of the violence which can occur with the extreme polarization of our politics.  When political discourse gives way to name calling and demonization (sound familiar Dare!?) then it should surprise no one when the weaker minded in our society allow themselves to over emphasize and overdramatize the arguments.  It happens on both sides of the fence. 

The answer is to demand intellectual honesty from each other.  Remain logical and factual in our arguments.  In matters that are subjective and agreement can not be reached, then, within the bounds of law and public safety, we should each live our lives as we see fit and not worry about the opinions of others.  The current climate (common on this site) of saying or doing ANYTHING to make a political point is a direct contributor to these kinds of incidents.

Then why have you denied that this has happened every time the person agrees with your political side of the spectrum?

Doesn't sound very intellectually honest.

If you speak, you will need to provide facts.  Otherwise I will assume that you are making up everything you say, just as you did on the Valerie Plame claims that you made.  You have shown yourself to be dishonest in your statements in your attempts to make a political point.

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 08:37:35 PM

Quote from: NotNow on August 20, 2012, 07:06:10 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 04:07:42 PM
turns out that there was a pretty famous case of an UZI being used to shoot up a whole bunch of people in 1984.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald's_massacre

But the sub machine gun is no longer legal.

Did you mention that there havent been any major crimes committed with a sub machine gun recently bridge troll?

Also, did you find the word 'gun' used in the Constitution?

A sub machine gun was not used in this shooting.  Do you even know what a sub machine gun is?  This is your chance to google.

As for your "question", I'll take on either one if they are trying to kill others.

Of course in your world, you will be fighting the sub gun with a rock, because you have given away your rights to a government.

And yes, it is a stupid question.

Well since I had to google the answer to Bridge Troll's question (since none of us apparently knew the answer) I don't mind being mistaken that the UZI used in the attack was a semi automatic weapon rather than their more famous submachine gun.

Please point out which article says the word 'gun'.

So you would prefer that your crowded room be attacked by both rocks and submachine guns?

That seems a little bizarre.

The Constitution says that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.  If you need instruction on what they meant, I will point you to numerous writings by the very men who wrote that document.  You can start with the Federalist Papers.  They made it very clear that they were referring to firearms.  To suggest differently would be at best...intellectually dishonest. 

I stated no preference to your silly question.  My answer is the same no matter the weapon, attack the person who is trying to murder other people.  What's "bizarre" to me is why that is difficult for you? 

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 09:34:20 PM
so then, No.  The Constitution does not mention the word guns once?

What do you suggest they meant by arms Stephen?  Nuclear weapons?  Bazookas?  Scimitars?  FIREARMS were common and readily available at the time, but what do you think they meant?

StephenDare! is not an honest poster.  He will make up statements and ignore any request to verify them.  When they are proven false, he will attempt to change the subject or just post a youtube video. 

Just as in this case, he is not trying to deal with truth, but would rather obfuscate the truth.  He does this in an attempt to make political hay.  It is a dishonorable practice.   I have answered his question and he knows, just as everyone else does, exactly what the founding fathers wrote and meant.  Let him carry on like the lackey he has shown himself to be.

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 09:42:35 PM

Quote from: Pinky on August 20, 2012, 09:37:57 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 09:34:20 PM
so then, No.  The Constitution does not mention the word guns once?

What do you suggest they meant by arms Stephen?  Nuclear weapons?  Bazookas?  Scimitars?  FIREARMS were common and readily available at the time, but what do you think they meant?

Perhaps it means all of those things, Pinky.

What would you say is the defining line, considering the escalation and enlargement of what we consider 'arms'?

Read the documents StephenDare!  Any middle schoolerwho has read the documents knows exactly what was meant.  Your games are silly and have no bearing on this conversation.  I have provided instructions on where to look if you are as clueless as you sound.  If you can't find the time or energy to read, then we will wait for YOUR proof that the founding fathers meant something else.  Until then, this schill tactic is moot.

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 09:42:35 PM

Quote from: Pinky on August 20, 2012, 09:37:57 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 09:34:20 PM
so then, No.  The Constitution does not mention the word guns once?

What do you suggest they meant by arms Stephen?  Nuclear weapons?  Bazookas?  Scimitars?  FIREARMS were common and readily available at the time, but what do you think they meant?

Perhaps it means all of those things, Pinky.

What would you say is the defining line, considering the escalation and enlargement of what we consider 'arms'?

I'd draw the line at Nuclear Weapons, but only because I'm given to wearing tight fitting clothes and it would be hard to conceal one.  But the question at hand is what do you believe the founding fathers meant by "arms" if not firearms?  (Or have you already quietly conceded that point with your "perhaps"?)

LOL, that is a FRENCH officer in the painting StephenDare!.   And what does a kidnapping from the French and Indian wars have to do with this conversation?  MORE OBFUSCATION.   You really don't care what you post, do you?  Just as long as you "make some points" truth really means nothing to you. 

Let us know when you find documentationt that the founding fathers meant something else.  I'll hold my breath.

Okay there have been some bizarre posts on here, but using a picture of a french officer, which by the way is during the french and indian war, not the revolutionary war, is somehow relevant to the discussion of the second amendment is just plain weird

I stand corrected stephen

What's the procedure for posting images on this board?  I've got a few Revolutionary War paintings to share with you Stephen.

I guess I just don't get the meaning of your post.  Is it that the revolutionaries carried sabres, ,well at least the officers, the Indians and the some of the militia carried tomahawks therefore the SECOND amendment didnt really mean firearms

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 10:18:56 PM

Quote from: Pinky on August 20, 2012, 10:16:06 PM
What's the procedure for posting images on this board?  I've got a few Revolutionary War paintings to share with you Stephen.

I suppose you are going to show paintings of the muskets used in the War, correct?  I think we can all agree that Muskets were used in the War.  But I wonder if you think being 'armed' only means 'posessing a gun'.

No, I believe it includes guns.

Again, when you can show proof that the founding fathers did not mean GUNS in their definition of arms, then we will talk.  Until then, this is just another stupid StephenDare! diversion.  SHOW PROOF WITH YOUR WORK.

I'm shocked StephenDare!.  Usually by now you would have just made something up.  You have already misused examples and made false assumptions.   Isn't it your MO to just throw crap out and see what sticks?

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 10:30:44 PM

Quote from: Pinky on August 20, 2012, 10:21:57 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 10:18:56 PM

Quote from: Pinky on August 20, 2012, 10:16:06 PM
What's the procedure for posting images on this board?  I've got a few Revolutionary War paintings to share with you Stephen.

I suppose you are going to show paintings of the muskets used in the War, correct?  I think we can all agree that Muskets were used in the War.  But I wonder if you think being 'armed' only means 'posessing a gun'.

No, I believe it includes guns.

but you would agree that guns arent specifically singled out as the instrument that defines being 'armed'?

And it seems like you agree that any developments since that era are subject to scrutiny as to whether the weapon is included in the reasonable definition of being armed.  Am I wrong on that subject?  Or do you really agree that a dirty nuclear bomb would be constitutionally protected under the second amendment?

I agree that guns aren't specifically singled out, but contend that they are included, just as swords, sabers and axes were.  I know for certain that they were among the "arms" of the day, and that they are most certainly not specifically excluded.

And no, I do not believe that the second amendment gives one the right to possess nuclear weapons, nor do I equate "nuclear weapons" with whatever class of firearm you're intending to ask me to object to by your use this rhetorical question. 

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 10:52:42 PM
well then we agree up to this point.  I do not think that the firearms of the day were excluded either.

The firearms of the day used gunpowder and a primer to propel a projectile down a rifled chamber.  Do you agree with me that firearms that use gunpowder and a primer to propel a projectile are therefore constitutionally protected, and that the Constitution is still a valid document today?

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 10:55:19 PM
For the purposes of the second amendment, do you think it would be possible to outlaw guns entirely, but require that citizens be trained in sword fighting and still fulfill the mandate that the right of the people to be armed?

Now keep in mind that I am not advocating this position, merely asking the question in the theoretical.

I would have to say no.  The Constitution does not make any distinction among the type of arms that the people have a right to keep and bear. 

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 11:09:48 PM

Quote from: Pinky on August 20, 2012, 11:07:50 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 10:52:42 PM
well then we agree up to this point.  I do not think that the firearms of the day were excluded either.

The firearms of the day used gunpowder and a primer to propel a projectile down a rifled chamber.  Do you agree with me that firearms that use gunpowder and a primer to propel a projectile are therefore constitutionally protected, and that the Constitution is still a valid document today?

you mean, like a cannon?  (also available at the time)

Sure.  Cannons are fair game if one is a strict constitutionalist.  Can you address my question now?

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 11:16:31 PM

Quote from: Pinky on August 20, 2012, 11:14:11 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 11:09:48 PM

Quote from: Pinky on August 20, 2012, 11:07:50 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 10:52:42 PM
well then we agree up to this point.  I do not think that the firearms of the day were excluded either.

The firearms of the day used gunpowder and a primer to propel a projectile down a rifled chamber.  Do you agree with me that firearms that use gunpowder and a primer to propel a projectile are therefore constitutionally protected, and that the Constitution is still a valid document today?

you mean, like a cannon?  (also available at the time)

Sure.  Cannons are fair game if one is a strict constitutionalist.  Can you address my question now?

No, I do not agree that the constitution protects a specific technology, but instead it protects a specific principle.

Are cannons legal for personal use?

Yes Stephen, they are. 

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 11:16:31 PM

Quote from: Pinky on August 20, 2012, 11:14:11 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 11:09:48 PM

Quote from: Pinky on August 20, 2012, 11:07:50 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 10:52:42 PM
well then we agree up to this point.  I do not think that the firearms of the day were excluded either.

The firearms of the day used gunpowder and a primer to propel a projectile down a rifled chamber.  Do you agree with me that firearms that use gunpowder and a primer to propel a projectile are therefore constitutionally protected, and that the Constitution is still a valid document today?

you mean, like a cannon?  (also available at the time)

Sure.  Cannons are fair game if one is a strict constitutionalist.  Can you address my question now?

No, I do not agree that the constitution protects a specific technology, but instead it protects a specific principle.

Are cannons legal for personal use?

No Stephen - it doesn't only address the principle of the right to defend oneself, it cites that right in the granting of the specific permission to keep and bear arms to that end.

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 11:41:53 PM
Actually, the claim that they are legal is a stretch and untrue in the spirit of the question.  Antiques may be kept, but not as a weapon.

The pertinent Code:


26 U.S.C. sec. 5845(f) "The term destructive device means

1) any explosive, incendiary or poison gas

A) bomb

B) grenade

C) rocket having propellant charge of more than four ounces

D) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce

E) mine, or

F) similar device

2) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of a explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary or his delegate finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; and

3) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in subparagraphs (1) and (2) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. The term 'destructive device' shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685 or 4686 of title 10 of the United States Code; or any other device which the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, or is an antique or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes."

Secretary in the above refers to the Secretary of the Treasury, unless it says otherwise. The fee for the FFL to deal in DD's is $1000 a year (type 09), and one must also be a special taxpayer, add another $500 a year. Making them requires a different $1000 a year FFL (type 10), although an individual may make them on a Form1, tax paid ($200). Transfers require the whole routine just like full-autos; a form 4, $200 tax, a law enforcement sign-off, pictures and fingerprints. Most class 3 dealers don't have the $1000 a year FFL to deal in DD's. Note that antiques are excluded. Thus the definition of an antique NFA firearm is important.

26 U.S.C. sec. 5845(g) "Antique firearm.-The term 'antique firearm' means any firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898 (including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system or replicas thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1898) and also any firearm using fixed  ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade."

Some examples of what is a DD and what is not:

Muzzle loading cannon - NOT, as it is an antique design, unless it has some special features allowing breech loading.

Cannons, as you quoted in your response, are not Destructive Devices, and therefore are not covered by the prohibition you cite.  A cannon, which uses separate loading components (separate ball, powder and primer) are technically black-powder guns.  Big-ass muzzleloaders in essence.  The prohibitions you cite are against breech loading artillery pieces, which fire a shell. 

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 11:50:06 PM
Because they are not legally used as 'arms'.  Once they do become 'arms' they become illegal.

Is it your intention to semanticize your way through an entire evening?

You asked if cannons were legal.  They are.  Do you intend to parse and use hyperbolic exaggeration all night?

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 11:54:48 PM

Quote from: Pinky on August 20, 2012, 11:52:59 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 11:50:06 PM
Because they are not legally used as 'arms'.  Once they do become 'arms' they become illegal.

Is it your intention to semanticize your way through an entire evening?

You asked if cannons were legal.  They are.  Do you intend to parse and use hyperbolic exaggeration all night?

apparently one will have to parse your answers since they seem to be so ambiguous as to need clarification.  Cannons are not covered by the second amendment.  Would you agree on that point?

No.  The second amendment makes no exclusion of cannons, which BTW, are legal.  Nanny nanny boo boo.  Now I gotta crash so I can wake up in the morning and take my kid to school. 

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 11:59:02 PM
Good Night.  I look forward to resuming the discussion. ;)

Mutual.  In the meantime, go polish your cannon.  They're legal you know...   ;)

Cheers.

Kids... your going about this all wrong.  Rather than focusing on the second amendment... we should look at the entire Bill of Rights.  Certainly there are other rights we can...er...um..."modify" to address this problem.

Quote from: stephendare on August 21, 2012, 08:24:48 AM
Bridge Troll.

Please find the word 'gun' in the second amendment.

Why?

Really?  Pages and pages of arguments about rocks, guns and swords?  There have always been crazy people who found a way to hurt and destroy.  The problem in modern times is that we have found weapons that can be so much more destructive than a musket, a sword (or a rock.)

On the one hand, it could be argued that the need for a "well regulated (citizens) militia isn't as necessary with the organized armed services we have now.  But on the other hand, should the armed services ever be used by Washington against "the people" we would wish we had the ability to fight back.  The issue can, and has, and will be argued for a long, long time.   And either way, there will still be crazy people who hurt other people.

Oh, and while the painting posted may have been the wrong war, the French were highly involved in the Revolutionary War.  They wanted to get back at the English.  They provided arms, uniforms, troops, supplies, and their Navy.

Quote from: Debbie Thompson on August 21, 2012, 01:15:10 PM

Oh, and while the painting posted may have been the wrong war, the French were highly involved in the Revolutionary War.  They wanted to get back at the English.  They provided arms, uniforms, troops, supplies, and their Navy.

QuoteAnd there WAS an Indian holding a rifle in the foreground...

Quote from: stephendare on August 21, 2012, 03:45:05 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 21, 2012, 11:08:54 AM

Quote from: stephendare on August 21, 2012, 08:24:48 AM
Bridge Troll.

Please find the word 'gun' in the second amendment.

Why?

Because you seem to be implying that Guns, and any weapon technology in all its forms are specifically protected by the second amendment.

Did you pay attention to the other part of that amendment?  The 'well regulated militia' part?

I have never implied that.  The word "arms" in the second amendment is understood by most to mean firearms.  It is quite well established that certain items have been deemed to be "regulated".  Very few have a problem with those items.  The problem occurs when you... and the media... confuse semi automatic weapons with sub machine guns or decide to call them assault rifles.  My shotgun which has been well used for my entire life is semi automatic.  Is it an assault rifle?  Sub machine gun?  If I lived in Australia it would apparently now be illegal and make me a criminal.

Quote from: stephendare on August 21, 2012, 04:04:59 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 21, 2012, 03:56:14 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 21, 2012, 03:45:05 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 21, 2012, 11:08:54 AM

Quote from: stephendare on August 21, 2012, 08:24:48 AM
Bridge Troll.

Please find the word 'gun' in the second amendment.

Why?

Because you seem to be implying that Guns, and any weapon technology in all its forms are specifically protected by the second amendment.

Did you pay attention to the other part of that amendment?  The 'well regulated militia' part?

I have never implied that.  The word "arms" in the second amendment is understood by most to mean firearms.  It is quite well established that certain items have been deemed to be "regulated".  Very few have a problem with those items.  The problem occurs when you... and the media... confuse semi automatic weapons with sub machine guns or decide to call them assault rifles.  My shotgun which has been well used for my entire life is semi automatic.  Is it an assault rifle?  Sub machine gun?  If I lived in Australia it would apparently now be illegal and make me a criminal.

So?

Just because you understand it to mean firearms, thats not what the second amendment was about.

But Im curious, if you admit that certain items are regulated by the constitution, why do you keep implying that the entire bill of rights needs to be revisited if guns are well regulated?

What do you think the second amendment was about?  I can see that you still haven't read the Federalist Papers.

Educate us Stephen..  What was the Second Amendment about?  You seem to want to force others into explaining it so that you can dissect their responses for some exploitable element; how about you sack-up and just tell us what it means?  So far it seems you think it means we should all have compulsory swashbuckling lessons.

Enlighten us, my clever friend.

Quote from: stephendare on August 21, 2012, 05:24:09 PM

Quote from: Pinky on August 21, 2012, 05:21:37 PM

Educate us Stephen..  What was the Second Amendment about?  You seem to want to force others into explaining it so that you can dissect their responses for some exploitable element; how about you sack-up and just tell us what it means?  So far it seems you think it means we should all have compulsory swashbuckling lessons.

Enlighten us, my clever friend.

The right of the people to bear arms, in order to maintain a well ordered militia.

Which "people"?  Citizens, or the armed forces?  And what qualifies as "arms"?  Since these seem to be the primary lines of attack you take in dissecting other's posts, please explain for us how you interpret them.

Quote from: stephendare on August 21, 2012, 05:08:15 PM

Quote from: NotNow on August 20, 2012, 07:02:04 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 03:53:28 PM
Since you are going to go Constitutional on the subject, Bridge Troll, where in the Constitution does it even mention guns?

Um, yes, it does.

speaking of actually reading something before you open your johnson trap........... ;)

As I have proven, that is exactly what the writers meant.  You have not, and can not, show anything written by the writers of the Constitution to show otherwise.  I have provided you with PILES of proof that that is exactly what they meant.  Just because you don't want to believe it, doesn't make it any less true.

Remember that "prove your statements" thing StephenDare!?  That is what you have consistently failed to do.  Instead of just ignoring it and flooding the thread with BS, try supporting your statements.  This is one that you have failed miserably to do so.

Quote from: stephendare on August 21, 2012, 04:04:59 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 21, 2012, 03:56:14 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 21, 2012, 03:45:05 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 21, 2012, 11:08:54 AM

Quote from: stephendare on August 21, 2012, 08:24:48 AM
Bridge Troll.

Please find the word 'gun' in the second amendment.

Why?

Because you seem to be implying that Guns, and any weapon technology in all its forms are specifically protected by the second amendment.

Did you pay attention to the other part of that amendment?  The 'well regulated militia' part?

I have never implied that.  The word "arms" in the second amendment is understood by most to mean firearms.  It is quite well established that certain items have been deemed to be "regulated".  Very few have a problem with those items.  The problem occurs when you... and the media... confuse semi automatic weapons with sub machine guns or decide to call them assault rifles.  My shotgun which has been well used for my entire life is semi automatic.  Is it an assault rifle?  Sub machine gun?  If I lived in Australia it would apparently now be illegal and make me a criminal.

So?

Just because you understand it to mean firearms, thats not what the second amendment was about.

But Im curious, if you admit that certain items are regulated by the constitution, why do you keep implying that the entire bill of rights needs to be revisited if guns are well regulated?

I really am curious what you think the term "arms" means... sounds like you think it is sabres and swords and knives... all of which are arms of course... right along with firearms.

So please... numerous others have asked... and now so am I. 

I would also point out that the USSC has defined "arms" to include "guns" or "firearms" or whatever other word someone decides to come up with.  Not to mention the fact that the individual right to possess "guns" has been affirmed by the same court.   Common knowledge to most of America.

I'm still waiting for StephenDare!'s explanation of the second amendment and his definition of "arms".  I doubt either is forthcoming.

Quote from: NotNow on August 21, 2012, 08:23:10 PM
I'm still waiting for StephenDare!'s explanation of the second amendment and his definition of "arms".  I doubt either is forthcoming.

I'm sure he and ChriswUF are cooking up some response counter point explanationdistraction...   

I guess it really does suck walking into a gun fight when you're only carrying a rock, errrrr sabre, errrrrr IndianwithamusketLOOKOUT.......   8)

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 21, 2012, 07:33:33 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 21, 2012, 04:04:59 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 21, 2012, 03:56:14 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 21, 2012, 03:45:05 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 21, 2012, 11:08:54 AM

Quote from: stephendare on August 21, 2012, 08:24:48 AM
Bridge Troll.

Please find the word 'gun' in the second amendment.

Why?

Because you seem to be implying that Guns, and any weapon technology in all its forms are specifically protected by the second amendment.

Did you pay attention to the other part of that amendment?  The 'well regulated militia' part?

I have never implied that.  The word "arms" in the second amendment is understood by most to mean firearms.  It is quite well established that certain items have been deemed to be "regulated".  Very few have a problem with those items.  The problem occurs when you... and the media... confuse semi automatic weapons with sub machine guns or decide to call them assault rifles.  My shotgun which has been well used for my entire life is semi automatic.  Is it an assault rifle?  Sub machine gun?  If I lived in Australia it would apparently now be illegal and make me a criminal.

So?

Just because you understand it to mean firearms, thats not what the second amendment was about.

But Im curious, if you admit that certain items are regulated by the constitution, why do you keep implying that the entire bill of rights needs to be revisited if guns are well regulated?

I really am curious what you think the term "arms" means... sounds like you think it is sabres and swords and knives... all of which are arms of course... right along with firearms.

So please... numerous others have asked... and now so am I. 

Quote from: stephendare on August 22, 2012, 12:48:57 AM

Quote from: Pinky on August 21, 2012, 05:40:21 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 21, 2012, 05:24:09 PM

Quote from: Pinky on August 21, 2012, 05:21:37 PM

Educate us Stephen..  What was the Second Amendment about?  You seem to want to force others into explaining it so that you can dissect their responses for some exploitable element; how about you sack-up and just tell us what it means?  So far it seems you think it means we should all have compulsory swashbuckling lessons.

Enlighten us, my clever friend.

The right of the people to bear arms, in order to maintain a well ordered militia.

Which "people"?  Citizens, or the armed forces?  And what qualifies as "arms"?  Since these seem to be the primary lines of attack you take in dissecting other's posts, please explain for us how you interpret them.

Pinky, I have maintained a civil tone throughout this conversation, but if you want to mischaracterize my discussion as 'attacking', then I will simply treat you with all of the respect that not now has earned from me.  In other words, the barest minimum.

You clearly have identified your own set of questions as a result of this discussion.

Which "people"?  Citizens, or the armed forces?  And what qualifies as "arms"?

If you recognize these questions, then please stop accusing me of 'attacking' for asking the same ones.

I try not to bother with notnow, as he does not posess the capacity for independent thought or analysis.  As you can tell from the thread already, whenever he is asked to think outside his predetermined boundaries, he gets nervous and angry, and begins calling everyone else in the thread either unpatriotic, questions their character or calls them shills.

If you would like to proceed with civil discussion, let me know.

Stephen-  Thats a pretty subjective reading of the phrase "line of attack", which is what I said.  I "accused" you only of dissecting others posts for exploitable elements, which is clearly what you're doing now even.  If my use of the phrase "line of attack" is troublesome, let's substitute "line of questioning" and proceed.

After 8 pages, nobody will answer the question of whether they'd rather face an attacker with a rock or one with a gun.

Quote from: stephendare on August 22, 2012, 07:23:50 AM
Thanks for the clarification, and my apologies for seeming overly sensitive.

No apologies necessary; just a misunderstanding.  Now back to the topic at hand; what "people" are afforded the right to keep and bear arms, and what constitutes "arms"?

Quote from: stephendare on August 22, 2012, 07:37:38 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 22, 2012, 07:33:51 AM
After 8 pages, nobody will answer the question of whether they'd rather face an attacker with a rock or one with a gun.

You noticed that, huh?

Although to be fair, bridgetroll did answer. ( he prefers the rock). The jury is still out for Ock, who presumably is still weighing all possible logistics.....lol ;)

Notnow will take them both simultaneously (although that was not the question......what a Man!)

And to be really, completely fair... Stephen has artfully dodged answering any questions posed by other posters.  Perhaps Chris could even let us know what he thinks the second amendment means... and specifically the meaning of "arms".

Quote

QuoteJust because you understand it to mean firearms, thats not what the second amendment was about.
But Im curious, if you admit that certain items are regulated by the constitution, why do you keep implying that the entire bill of rights needs to be revisited if guns are well regulated?

Quote
I really am curious what you think the term "arms" means... sounds like you think it is sabres and swords and knives... all of which are arms of course... right along with firearms.

So please... numerous others have asked... and now so am I. 

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 22, 2012, 07:33:51 AM
After 8 pages, nobody will answer the question of whether they'd rather face an attacker with a rock or one with a gun.

Perhaps that's because it's an absurd, obviously rhetorical question.  I'd prefer to face an attacker who is armed with free hundred dollar bills, or marshmallows. 

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 22, 2012, 08:07:10 AM

Quote from: stephendare on August 22, 2012, 07:37:38 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 22, 2012, 07:33:51 AM
After 8 pages, nobody will answer the question of whether they'd rather face an attacker with a rock or one with a gun.

You noticed that, huh?

Although to be fair, bridgetroll did answer. ( he prefers the rock). The jury is still out for Ock, who presumably is still weighing all possible logistics.....lol ;)

Notnow will take them both simultaneously (although that was not the question......what a Man!)

And to be really, completely fair... Stephen has artfully dodged answering any questions posed by other posters.  Perhaps Chris could even let us know what he thinks the second amendment means... and specifically the meaning of "arms".

Quote

QuoteJust because you understand it to mean firearms, thats not what the second amendment was about.
But Im curious, if you admit that certain items are regulated by the constitution, why do you keep implying that the entire bill of rights needs to be revisited if guns are well regulated?

Quote
I really am curious what you think the term "arms" means... sounds like you think it is sabres and swords and knives... all of which are arms of course... right along with firearms.

So please... numerous others have asked... and now so am I. 

Artful indeed.  It's much like a recent UFC bout between Clay Guida and Grey Maynard, in which Guida spent all three rounds slipping and moving, feinting, blocking and occasionally counter-punching.  It was a masterful display of safe non-engagement, but in the end he lost the respect of a lot of people because that's not in the spirit of the game.  Much like the spirit of this game is supposed to be discussion and debate, not deposition. 

Of course, if the game is really just about pumping up the post count on a slow day by trolling and baiting, it's definitely a masterful performance.  But it does get a bit tiresome for those of us who are here for a genuine exchange of ideas.

For what it's worth; the phrase "well regulated militia"  means well trained militia, one that meets and drills on a regular basis.  It doesn't have anything to do with "regulations".

Talking about gun laws in America is like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, a waste of time and energy.  There are more guns in the US than people.  If the manufacture and sale of firearms was stopped right now I don't think that there would be any reduction in gun violence.  Even if the law required it, people would not turn in all their guns either; me included.

We can't put the genii back in the bottle.  We are just going to have to live with what we have now.  The occasional crazy is going to shoot people or go after them with a samurai sword or gasoline bomb or drive through a crowd.

Quote from: Dog Walker on August 22, 2012, 09:09:28 AM
For what it's worth; the phrase "well regulated militia"  means well trained militia, one that meets and drills on a regular basis.  It doesn't have anything to do with "regulations".

Talking about gun laws in America is like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, a waste of time and energy.  There are more guns in the US than people.  If the manufacture and sale of firearms was stopped right now I don't think that there would be any reduction in gun violence.  Even if the law required it, people would not turn in all their guns either; me included.

We can't put the genii back in the bottle.  We are just going to have to live with what we have now.  The occasional crazy is going to shoot people or go after them with a samurai sword or gasoline bomb or drive through a crowd.

I am in agreement with you DW.  This is why I asked about a more "holistic and comprehensive" approach to the issue of gun violence.  The discussion always seems to center on the second amendment of the Bill of Rights.  It is number two for a reason.  The "Australian solution" that someone posted earlier will simply not work in the USA.  My suggestion to look at other causes and perhaps even freedoms for ways to curtail mass gun violence is genuine.  Any ideas?

Quote from: stephendare on August 22, 2012, 09:51:26 AM
If you are here for a genuine exchange of ideas, perhaps it's easier to simply exchange them rather than kvetch about the process.

In coming to my own opinions, I know that I like to hear other points of view, listen to other possibilities.

Otherwise I'm not really having a conversation, I'm listening to preaching, and I can do that at church..

You guys seem to want a fight rather than a discussion.

That said, I totally disagree with dogwalker's fait accompli philosophy.

In what way do you disagree?  What are "arms"?  What is the second amendment about?

Quote from: stephendare on August 22, 2012, 09:59:10 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 22, 2012, 09:55:08 AM

Quote from: stephendare on August 22, 2012, 09:51:26 AM
If you are here for a genuine exchange of ideas, perhaps it's easier to simply exchange them rather than kvetch about the process.

In coming to my own opinions, I know that I like to hear other points of view, listen to other possibilities.

Otherwise I'm not really having a conversation, I'm listening to preaching, and I can do that at church..

You guys seem to want a fight rather than a discussion.

That said, I totally disagree with dogwalker's fait accompli philosophy.

In what way do you disagree?  What are "arms"?  What is the second amendment about?

I think that the example provided by Australia pretty much disproves the idea that guns cannot be removed mostly from a modern society.

I've already answered the question on the second amendment, bridge.  The devil seems to be in the purpose of the provision, and the definition of arms and militia.

What would you say the 'militia' is or was?

I disagree about the "Australian solution".  Seems they are not constrained by a specific "Bill of Rights".

QuoteThe Australian Constitution does not include a Bill of Rights. Some delegates to the 1898 Constitutional Convention favoured a section similar to the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, but the majority felt that the traditional rights and freedoms of British subjects were sufficiently guaranteed by the Parliamentary system and independent judiciary which the Constitution would create. As a result, the Australian Constitution has often been criticised for its scant protection of rights and freedoms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Australia#Protection_of_rights

Quote from: stephendare on August 22, 2012, 11:22:42 AM
Bridge Troll, what are you talking about?

Do you agree or disagree that Australia was a heavily armed country that transitioned to a country where only certain types of guns (hunting) were legal?

Australia isnt magic, they do not have superior ability to administer a program.

They were a gun culture, and now they arent.

I disagree with DogWalker that the United States could not do a similar thing.

It would take a few decades to ferret out the truly dangerous weapons of mass destruction, but it could be done.

Why I am talking about that pesky second amendment of the Bill of Rights.  You know... just after the first and before the third.  It is pretty important... or at least the founders thought so.  Australia did not have such an impediment to the legislation you seek.  The confiscation, buyback, "voluntary" surrender of firearms to the government is about as likely as the confiscation, buyback, and voluntary surrender of newspapers, magazines, and other weapons of mass dissemination to the government.

Quote from: stephendare on August 22, 2012, 11:37:35 AM
So ....Do you agree or disagree that Australia was a heavily armed country that transitioned to a country where only certain types of guns (hunting) were legal?

"Heavily" might not be the correct word but clearly they enacted the laws...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

QuoteCurrent Australian firearm laws

State laws govern the possession and use of firearms in Australia. These laws were largely aligned under the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms. Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms.

Before someone can buy a firearm, he must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit has a mandatory 28-day delay before it is first issued. In some states (e.g., Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales), this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defence is not accepted as a reason for issuing a license, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defence.[2]

Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states allow an owner to store or borrow another person's registered firearm of the same category.

[edit] Firearms categories

Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories with different levels of control. The categories are:
Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, and paintball markers. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.
Category B: Centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. Apart from a "Genuine Reason", a "Genuine Need" must be demonstrated, including why a Category A firearm would not be suitable.
Category C: Semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Category C firearms are strongly restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.
Category D: Semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.
Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. This class is available to target shooters. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of six months using club handguns, and a minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun.
Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 handguns that meet the IPSC rules, but larger calibers are not approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests. Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols: magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handguns held as part of a collection were exempted from these limits. Category R/E: Restricted weapons: machine guns, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, etc. can be owned by collectors in some states provided that these weapons have been rendered permanently inoperable. They are subject to the same storage and licensing requirements as fully functioning firearms.

Certain Antique firearms can in some states be legally held without licences. In other states they are subject to the same requirements as modern firearms.

All single-shot muzzleloading firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901 are considered antique firearms. Four states require licences for antique percussion revolvers and cartridge repeating firearms, but in Queensland and Victoria a person may possess such a firearm without a licence, so long as the firearm is registered (percussion revolvers require a license in Victoria).

Australia has very tight restrictions on items which are far less controlled in comparable societies such as the UK. Air pistols, elsewhere unrestricted, are as difficult to get as centrefire and rimfire handguns, and low-powered airguns are as difficult as cartridge arms to license. Airsoft guns are banned in all states and non-firing replicas banned in most. Suppressors (or 'silencers') which are legal in the UK and New Zealand, are extremely restricted in Australia to a few government bodies.[3]

Quote from: stephendare on August 22, 2012, 11:57:06 AM
So, Yes.  You agree that Australia transitioned.

I have said that more than once.  The difference between the two countries is our constitutions.  Ours has a Bill of Rights... one of which is the right to keep and bear arms.  Australia had no such impediment.

There is another difference.  Australia was never a heavily armed country and didn't have a gun culture like this country.  They also never had militias, but had the standing British army to protect them.  They never revolted against their own government.  They never had a civil war.

Different history makes different culture.  My Australian friends were always mystified by American's attitudes towards firearms.  Lovely country, lovely people, BTW.

Quote from: stephendare on August 22, 2012, 09:55:00 AM
And besides admit it, you've already learned a few things that you midgut have known but not thought about.  For example, most people believe Notnow's ridiculous assumption that guns are specifically mentioned in the us constitution, but they aren't.

You want to know what else is not mentioned?

Police.

Now why would This have a bearing on the second amendment?

Your lack of familiarity with both the Constitution, its authors, and their meaning stands on its own. 

"Police" is just another StephenDare! diversion.

Just another circular argument ending in StephenDare! claiming "I haven't made up my mind" while rolling out little word games and platitudes for his liberal argument for pages on end.  I call him a "schill" because that is exactly what he is.  He simply puts out the party line without any real discussion.  "I used to be a Reagan Republican", "I'm a fiscal conservative", and " Up until this year, I believed in the private possession of guns" are all just another method to schill.  I have been arguing with Dare! for at least eight years and I have never, ever heard him support anything republican, fiscally conservative, or the private possession of guns.  In fact, just the opposite.  When he is "mistaken", he will ignore it and change the subject.  When he is proven factually wrong he will do the same.  There is no exchange of information, there is only the furthering of the talking points and the party line. 

If one really wants to discuss the meaning of "arms" as stated in the Bill of Rights that meaning is readily available from not only legal scholars and the US Supreme Court, but from the men who wrote the actual document.  Their opinion of "interpreting" the document is also easily found.  Just a few examples:

"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way that the Contitutiondesignates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be an instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."  - George Washington

"The present Constitution is the standard by which we are to cling.  Under its banners, bona fide must we combat our political foes- rejecting all changes but for the channel itself provides for amendments." - Alexander Hamilton

" The Constitution on which our union rests, shall be administered ... according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption - a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated it - On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it. conform to the probable one in which it was passed. ...Our particular security of a written Constitution.  Let us not make it blank paper by construction." - Thomas Jefferson

"I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation.  In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution.  And if that is not the guide on expounding it, there may be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers." - James Madison

Plain, common sense writing by plain, common sense men.  How have we made it so complicated?  How have we screwed up such an honorable, sensible plan of governance?  By allowing our politicians to play the same kinds of games you see on this very thread. 

I'll say it again.  Read the Constitution.  Read the Bill of Rights.  Read the Federalist Papers (an explanation of the meaning of the Constitution by its authors).   Then, when you hear the painful twists and wordplay of those that would alter the simple meaning of the Constitutions authors, you can easily challenge their ignorance or dishonorable intent.   The last resort of such persons is also the same as what you see here.  They will attack the founding fathers, "slave owning white guys" and other slurs.  Just as they will personally attack anyone who challenges their intent with factual information. 

"When a law can be construed to mean what government wants, then we no longer live under the rule of law". - NotNow

George Mason's "Virginia Declaration of Rights" in 1776 heavily influenced the Bill of Rights:

A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the Representatives of the good people of VIRGINIA, assembled in full and free Convention; which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of Government.
I. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

II. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

III. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

IV. That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge be hereditary.

V. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judicative; and, that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections in which all, or any part of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.

VI. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good.

VII That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.

VIII That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgement of his peers.

IX That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

X That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.

XI That in controversies respecting property and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.

XII That the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.

XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

XIV That the people have a right to uniform government; and therefore, that no government separate from, or independent of, the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.

XV That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

XVI That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

Adopted unanimously June 12, 1776 Virginia Convention of Delegates drafted by Mr. George Mason

The founders were what you'd describe as libertarian, at least for themselves I guess, they certainly didn't apply the philosophy to the slaves they owned, or to women, etc., but the point is they were responding to concerns over British conscription and were trying to avoid having a large standing army. The militia was supposed to provide national defense, that could be called into a regular army in times of war. The the war of 1812 came, and you had a bunch of farmers with substandard weapons being sent against the worst rent-a-soldiers the British could hire and Canadians, and still managing to lose. Once the British were cleared of their other engagements and were able to start shipping over regulars, we quickly threw in the towel on that and got serious about a professional military.

But the original framework favors a small permanent standing army, what they were going for was an as-needed type thing. Article I ss. 8 grants the authority to raise and maintain an army, but congress is limited to funding it for 2 years at a time, presumably the intent was to raise an army in wartime and go back to basics when it was over. It just didn't work out very well in practice during 1812-1814, and since then we've always had a relatively sizeable professional military. But the concept survives to this day with the national guard.

But if what you're asking is the purpose, it was a defense force, the point of the militia wasn't to fight our own government. The original intent there was a minimalist military except in wartime, so you wanted everybody to have firearms when they were called up, and whatever number of them wound up being serviceable would be some number the government wouldn't have to furnish. The founders would probably have viewed disarming the populace as leaving the country susceptible to invasion. Obviously things have changed, today you can sit in a bunker and push buttons, or send in tanks, a bunch of farmers with muskets aren't in the picture any longer and haven't been since 1812, and the national guard furnishes government-supplied weapons.

I think whole debate has been falsely painted as black and white, and despite the ragging on him, not by Stephen. Everyone already acknowledges there are certain 'arms' I'm not allowed to have (for obvious reasons). I can't have a personal nuclear missile, a personal battleship, personal f/18's, unless they are disarmed. Those are obviously 'arms.' The federal law against possessing that type of weaponry was already quoted. Stephen's point is that technology has developed far beyond what the founders envisioned, and there's this debate going on where you have one faction arguing that 'arms' is a catch-all. It's not. Or else why can't I have a personal nuclear bomb? That's not arms? Stephen's just pointing out that this applies to assault weapons, 250 years ago nobody envisioned something that could mow down a theater full of people in seconds, why is that constitutionally protected if everyone has no problem seeing the logic in not letting me have personal warplanes or missiles? It's just a matter of where you draw the line really.

QuoteThe federal law against possessing that type of weaponry was already quoted. Stephen's point is that technology has developed far beyond what the founders envisioned, and there's this debate going on where you have one faction arguing that 'arms' is a catch-all. It's not. Or else why can't I have a personal nuclear bomb? That's not arms? Stephen's just pointing out that this applies to assault weapons, 250 years ago nobody envisioned something that could mow down a theater full of people in seconds, why is that constitutionally protected if everyone has no problem seeing the logic in not letting me have personal warplanes or missiles? It's just a matter of where you draw the line really.

While I am not sure I agree with the first 3 paragraphs... I can certainly find common ground with your last paragraph.  Most of us understand that "arms" is not a catch all.  Most of us understand the limits on ownership nuclear weapons, artillery, hand grenades, etc.

The problem (at least to me) is that we all understand what a nuclear weapon, artillery, hand grenades are.  If the definition of an "assault weapon" is that it is an automatic weapon (1 trigger pull equals multiple bullets) that is one thing.  If an "assault weapons" definition has mysteriously expanded to be a fearsome looking semi-automatic weapon (1 trigger pull equals 1 bullet) that is an entirely different animal.

My shotgun is semi automatic.  Assault weapon?  Most sidearms are semi automatic.  Assault weapon?

You mention that the debate seems to be black and white.  I do not agree... nor do most.  Most agree with many of the restrictions already in place... and could possibly agree to more restrictions under certain circumstances.

When I look at the Australian solution I see an overly restrictive (in the extreme) solution that may work for Australia but is not practical in this country... mainly due to the second amendment... and our history.

For the debate to move beyond the emotional reflex of "we gotta do someting"... we need to define terms and goals.  Right now the debate seems to be about banning any type of weapon that can "kill lots of people".  Unhappily this broad definition applies to most personal weapons.

BT, I think it's a classic case of form over function.  People see these "scary" semi-auto rifles and have a knee jerk reaction.  Most people do not understand how the weapon functions, and they probably don't care.  It looks like the gun Rambo was carrying so it must be bad.   You never hear any mention of the fact that the gun functions EXACTLY like any other semi-automatic weapon.  Just wait until there's another DC sniper, hunting rifles will be the next target.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland

I would love to see something supporting this...

QuoteFor example it was illegal for most of the people to own guns.

Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2012, 12:48:57 PM
what do you think the numbers were like when you only count white, protestant, male patriots who had managed not to be accused of heresy.

Take away the women, the native americans, the africans, the catholics, the 'heretics', the non citizens and the british loyalists, do you think you have a majority of the people in the thirteen trade based colonies?

After all, white people were so inept at working the actual land that they nearly all died of starvation without slave labor.  Virginians were reduced to digging up their own graves and devouring the dead in the first twelve years.

Here is a great link to understand how widespread slavery was.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncolorline.html

While your link is certainly interesting... it seems to concentrate on mainly the 1600's and years prior to the republic.  Contrary to your revisionist theory... arms including firearms were prevelent (ask the british)... even among the groups of people you listed as being forbidden to bear arms... including women. 

I see where you are trying very hard to go... but it simply isnt/wasnt so...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2818440/posts

QuoteTo summarize the information from Chapter 3 of my forthcoming textbook Firearms Law and the Second Amendment: Regulation, Rights, and Policy (Aspen Publishers, available in late Jan. 2012) regarding American law pre-1800:

Women: No restrictions. Of course they did not serve in the militia. Laws requiring “householders” (whether or not they were in the militia) to have arms were common, and these usually included a woman who was the head of the house (e.g., a widow).

Free blacks: Some states had no restrictions, some states had bans on their owning guns. Free blacks served in some state militia, not in some other states, and in some states policies changed depending on military necessity. They were excluded from the federal militia by the Second Militia Act of 1792.

Slaves: Several states banned gun ownership, or allowed ownership only with the master’s permission.

Poor whites: To claim that they were excluded from gun ownership or from militia service is absurd. There were absolutely no property or wealth restrictions on gun ownership, nor on service in the militia. To the contrary, many states had programs to supply poor people with guns (“public arms”) for militia service, if they could not afford their own. Further, the laws requiring householders to be armed often required that the household provide arms to adult male servants. State laws also required that when an indentured servant finished his or her term of service, the master must provide the former servant with “freedom dues” so that the servant could begin independent life. The freedom dues were specified set of goods; in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, freedom dues for male servants included a firearm. In short, the state laws of the 17th and 18th centuries in America were generally prescriptive about gun ownership by poor people, and the prescriptions were to put guns into the hands of the poor.

The author of the NYU article asserts that “arms bearing was considered congruent to voting, holding public office, or serving on juries.” That’s incorrect for “bearing” in the sense of carrying a gun for personal use, since there were no wealth, sex, age, or citizenship restrictions on carrying. And the claim is even more incorrect if “bearing” is meant in the restrictive sense of “bearing for militia service.” Militia laws always mandated service by all males (except, sometimes Blacks or Indians) in a certain age range. Period. The only exemptions were for specified professions (e.g., clergy). Militia duty was generally required starting at age 16 or 18 (which was before voting eligibility). Indeed, during the end of the 18th century and the early 19th century, one of the standard,successful, arguments for broadening the franchise by eliminating the property requirement for voting was that anyone who served in the militia deserved to vote. E.g., “Let every man who fights or pays, exercise his just and equal right in their election.” Thomas Jefferson letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816.

Catholics: In Maryland, temporarily barred from gun ownership during the French & Indian War.

Dissenters: During the Revolution, there were plenty of instances of confiscating guns (sometimes with compensation) for militia use from people who would not take a loyalty oath to the new nation, or who would not serve in the militia (this included plenty of religious pacifists in Pennsylvania). During the early theocratic days in Massachusetts, 75 supporters of the religious dissident Anne Hutchinson were disarmed.

The author’s thesis is that illegal aliens and legal non-resident aliens should be allowed to own guns. Part of his argument is to construct and then criticize the supposedly historical “gendered,and class-stratified understanding of persons permitted to own guns.” The author could have made a stronger historical argument for his position if he had accurately described the gun laws of 17th and 18th century America.

http://www.rkba.org/research/cramer/GunScarcity.pdf

QuoteIn my examination of the contemporary documents for mention of firearms,
indications of firearms rarity are non-existent (though particular types of
firearms might be rare). Indeed, of more than two dozen published travel
accounts and memoirs of the early Republic which I read during my research
into antebellum concealed weapon statutes, twenty-four mentioned firearms
and sport or subsistence hunting as unsurprising; in very few accounts was
there no mention of firearms and hunting. None of these sources claimed or
even implied that privately owned firearms, subsistence hunting, or sport
hunting were rare, unusual, or stigmatized. Marksmanship, according to
many of the accounts, was highly prized, and high competence with firearms
was widespread. Furthermore, these accounts make it appear that this was
true for all regions of the United States.

and...

QuoteHenry Rowe Schoolcraft’s 1818 journey through the Ozarks also provides
evidence that, contrary to Bellesîles’s claims, firearms ownership, sport
hunting, and subsistence hunting, were all common. His description of the
frontier settlement of Sugar-Loaf Prairie shows that guns and hunting were
the norm:
These people subsist partly by agriculture, and partly by hunting.… Hunting is the
principal, the most honourable, and the most profitable employment. To excel in the
chace [sic] procures fame, and a man’s reputation is measured by his skill as a
marksman, his agility and strength, his boldness and dexterity in killing game, and his
patient endurance and contempt of the hardships of the hunter’s life.… They… can
subsist any where in the woods, and would form the most efficient military corps in
frontier warfare which can possibly exist. Ready trained, they require no discipline,
inured to danger, and perfect in the use of the rifle.1

Pretty comprehensive research paper...

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1489&context=wmlr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dfirearm%2520ownership%2520in%2520the%2520early%2520republic%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D21%26ved%3D0CB8QFjAAOBQ%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.wm.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1489%2526context%253Dwmlr%26ei%3DnHE2ULLeHZGC8AThpoGACQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNFStVQS_wSaowi7_y9io8_N5bJDBA#search=%22firearm%20ownership%20early%20republic%22

QuoteFor example, in the itemized
personal property inventories of white males in the three databases
listed, gun ownership ranges from 54% to 73%.

As a matter of fact... more housholds listed guns as an household
item than they did tables.

QuoteHawley found that guns were the most
commonly listed of the six items she counted. In the middling to
affluent groups (the 60% of estates ranked from the 30th to the 90th
percentiles), there were the following percentages of these common
items:
Guns (63-69%),
Tables (50-64%),
Seating furniture (40-68%),
Hoes (35-41%),
Axes (31-33%),
Sharp knives (18-20%). 19
Among the wealthiest 10% of estates, only 4% had sharp knives, but
74% had guns. None of the six items she counted were as common
as guns, which appear to have been present in 50% or more of
estates overall.20

Whoa Stephen.  You seem to be making a leap that I am not willing to take.  Lets clarify a few things before moving on to another subject.

You seem to be contending that firearms were a rather rare or at least uncommon item for the people to own.  Most scholars disagree and I have provided two studies that show gun ownership to be very high... as much as 70% with guns being more abundant in many households than knives.

You also seem to be contending that for those few who did own guns... it was for the purpose of a well regulated militia.  While that is certainly partially true... it was only one of many reasons to own firearms.  Firearms were used much more frequently for traditional uses than drilling for the militia.

QuoteTraps crossbows and the like we're far more common than guns for hunting.

This is just not true.

QuoteIf you can only imagine hunting with the old muskets?

Yes... that is how they did it... in fact they were very good at it. (again...ask the british)

Very good reading...


http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1489&context=wmlr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dfirearm%2520ownership%2520in%2520the%2520early%2520republic%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D21%26ved%3D0CB8QFjAAOBQ%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.wm.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1489%2526context%253Dwmlr%26ei%3DnHE2ULLeHZGC8AThpoGACQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNFStVQS_wSaowi7_y9io8_N5bJDBA#search=%22firearm%20ownership%20early%20republic%22

Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2012, 04:24:05 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 23, 2012, 04:01:17 PM

QuoteTraps crossbows and the like we're far more common than guns for hunting.

This is just not true.

http://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/fur-trade3.htm

If I can be allowed to speak for myself...your reference does not seem to address BT's point.  Perhaps you can elaborate. 

I notice that BT is the only one referencing his points.  As usual. 

Derogatory references to the Federalist Papers and the authors of both the FP and the US Constitution do not change the facts.  "Arms", as used in the Constitution, has been defined by the authors of the document themselves. 

The "nuclear weapons" argument is another ridiculous red herring.  The same written history and explanations, along with several USSC opinions has resulted in an accepted definition of "arms".  Those normally borne by a foot soldier. 

This tangent that StephenDare! has successfully created is a waste of breath. 

Again, the point of the thread is that radicalization of the weak minded occurs without any difference in the political opinions of the weak minded.  Perhaps the real answer to these situations lies not with attempting to subvert the Constitutional rights of Americans but emphasizing the merits of differing points of view and amicable discussion in our form of government.

Just keep making stuff up StephenDare!, there seem to be quite a few here who will not question your theories.

Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2012, 04:24:05 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 23, 2012, 04:01:17 PM

QuoteTraps crossbows and the like we're far more common than guns for hunting.

This is just not true.

http://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/fur-trade3.htm

This is laughable.  Trappers use traps, because bullets damage the pelts they were after. 

Hunting in the colonial era was very different. 

"   The practice of hunting in England at the time the American Colonies were settled was legally restricted to the gentry. Virtually all of the land was owned in large parcels by the wealthy, who preserved them from generation to generation by bequeathing their entire estates intact to the oldest son through the law of primogeniture. To protect these fields and woodlands from poachers, gamekeepers were employed who patrolled the properties and provided selective hunting for the owners. By law, no one was allowed to own a gun unless he possessed substantial freehold property or was given special permission. Thus, legal shooting was not even a choice for the average citizen. By the 1740s this restrictive practice led to hunting being considered a symbol of wealth, and field shooting “on the wing” had become a popular sport for the well-to-do.
  In North America, however, land was readily available, and possession of guns was universal as hunting with firearms was a primary means of survival. Rural homes depended on arms to help feed their large families, as well as to provide physical protection and fulfill local militia demands. The heavily wooded terrain of the New World, in turn, provided a bounty of game ranging from turkeys, geese, ducks and game birds to the larger deer, bear, elk and moose. In order to take advantage of this, the provincials employed various combinations of ball, buckshot, or buck and ball in smoothbore flintlock fowlers which were the forerunners of today’s shotguns. (The rifles developed in Western settlements are not included here.)
   These arms generally had long barrels averaging 44” to 60” to permit the full powder charge to burn effectively and to provide an extended sight radius. Such lengths may seem unwieldy, but the dense overhead canopy of the virgin forests permitted far less undergrowth than that encountered in today’s second growth woodlands. The typical gunstocks were walnut, maple or cherry and included a high-raised comb, plus a fore-end that reached to the muzzleâ€"which frequently had the wood cut back 3” to 4” and a barrel stud added to mount a socket bayonet for military service. Second sights were rare; the front blade was usually supplemented by a groove filed into the breech tang as the rear-aiming guide. Sling swivels, too, were omitted as the arms were intended to be hand-carried for instant use.
   While many arms were supplied from abroad, those created or repaired by Americans often employed a mixture of parts reused from prior guns or imported as individual components. The patterns varied by geographical region and evolved toward lighter designs as the tree cover gave way to open land and smaller game. In the final analysis, however, it was the man himself who made the difference. Hunting has always been fundamental to our enduring frontier spirit, and this review of its Colonial beginnings reveals how America’s ancestors adapted to many of the same challenges facing modern hunters."

Source: http://www.jaegerkorps.org/NRA/Hunting%20Guns%20in%20Colonial%20America.htm

There are many different colonial people. Some were the Indians or Native Americans. They used stick and rocks as spears and bows and arrows. The English settlers in he 1600s used guns that they traded for corn with the INdians. Though that helped them get food while they were on good terms the Indians soon used the guns against them while fighting.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_did_the_colonial_people_use_while_hunting#ixzz24QJseZrS

"As the Second Amendments attests, gun ownership has been such a vital part of American culture since colonial days that the forefathers of the Constitution made certain gun ownership remained the right of every citizen. In North Carolina and the other colonies, colonials used guns to defend their homes against Indian attack, hunt game for dinner and even to make extra cash. They could kill animals and ship pelts to Europe for a hefty profit. Several types of guns were common during the colonial period and testament to the creative ingenuity of these early Americans."

Read more: What Weapons Were Used During Colonial Days of North Carolina? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_8105679_weapons-colonial-days-north-carolina.html#ixzz24QMHpVaA

Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2012, 10:02:51 PM
Also, please note the wording of Woodrow Wilson's executive order in 1914 regarding the practice of "fire hunting"

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=75354

QuoteSection 1. Every person who shall hunt at night, between the hours of sunset and sunrise, with the aid or use of a lantern, torch, bonfire, or other artificial light, or who shall hunt by the use of a gun or other firearm intended to be discharged by an animal or bird, by means of a spring or trap, or other similar mechanical device, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

The penalties imposed by this Order shall be in addition to the punishments authorized by the law against carrying arms without a permit.

Sec. 2. The Executive Order of September 8, 1909, amending Section 454 of the Penal Code of the Canal Zone, is hereby repealed.

SEC. 3. This order shall take effect thirty days from and, after its publication in the Canal Record.

WOODROW WILSON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 27, 1914.

Obviously the practice of fire hunting wasnt necessarily dependent upon guns---as gun advocates would like to claim, but also traps and springs and other mechanical devices.

And that was all the way up until the beginning decades of the 20th century.

This says guns were used, not the contrary, but that one could not use them in a manner in which an animals movement would cause them to fire.  Like a trip wire, for example. 

"Colonial gunmakers, however, could and did control one niche in the North American market. That was rifle making. "The long rifle was the only gun made in numbers in America in the 1700s," Gusler said. "During its time, it was the highest expression of the gun maker's art in this country."

The long rifle apparently evolved from German hunting rifles; the gunsmiths who created this New World weapon initially shared a German heritage. The American long rifle grew from these roots to meet frontier needs and conditions. The conventional wisdom has been that these rifles were made exclusively in Kentucky and Pennsylvania. Gusler's research, conducted over his lifetime, shows, however, that long rifles were also made in Virginia, especially around Shepherdstown, Winchester, Augusta County, and the central Shenandoah Valley.

The long rifle was the weapon for the frontier. Its long range allowed hunters to take large game, such as deer and elk, at a distance. A marksman could hit targets at two hundred yards. Powder and shot were short on the frontier, and long rifles let hunters get food with one round, reducing the ammunition they needed to buy and to carry."

http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/autumn00/gunsmith.cfm

"The longrifle developed on the American frontier in and about Lancaster, Pennsylvania in the 1740s.[citation needed] It continued to be developed technically and artistically until it passed out of fashion in the second quarter of the 19th century. Strong pockets of longrifle use and manufacture continued in the Appalachian Mountains of Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and North Carolina, however, well into the 20th century as a practical and efficient firearm for those rural segments of the nation. Longrifles could be made entirely by hand and hand-operated tooling, in a frontier setting.
Although experts argue the fine points of origin and lineage, it is accepted that the longrifle was the product of German gunsmiths who immigrated to new settlements in Pennsylvania and Virginia as early as the 1620s.[citation needed]
Initially the weapon of choice on the frontier was the smooth bore musket or trade gun, built by the thousands in factories in England and France and shipped to the colonies for purchase.[citation needed] Gradually, rifles became more popular due to their longer effective range. While the smooth bore musket had an effective range of less than 100 yards, a rifleman could hit a man-sized target at a range of three hundred yards or more. The price for this accuracy was longer reloading time. While the musket could be reloaded in approximately 20 seconds, the longrifle required up to a minute.[citation needed]
Among the earliest documented working rifle makers are Adam Haymaker, who had a thriving trade in the northern Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, and the Moravian gunshops at Christian's Spring in Pennsylvania and in the Salem area of North Carolina.[citation needed] All three areas were busy and productive centers of rifle making by the 1750s. The Great Wagon Road was a bustling frontier thoroughfare, and rifle shops traced this same route - from eastern Pennsylvania, down the Shenandoah Valley, and spilling into both the Cumberland Gap into Kentucky and the Yadkin River (Salem) area of North Carolina.[citation needed]
Martin Meylin's (Mylin) Gunshop was built in 1719, and it is here that the Mennonite gunsmith of Swiss-German heritage crafted some the earliest, and possibly the first, Pennsylvania Rifles.[2] The Martin Meylin Gunshop still stands today in Willow Street, Pennsylvania, on Long Rifle Road.[3][4] The Lancaster County Historical Society has an original Pennsylvania Long Rifle smithed by Meylin that was passed down within the family for seven generations before being donated to the society in the middle of the twentieth century. A document describing the history of Meylin, the Gunshop, and archeology of the shop is available online from Millersville University.[5]
There is documentation stating that the first high quality 'Kentucky rifles' were from a gunsmith named Jacob Deckard, possibly of German, Pennsylvanian, or Virginian background. The name 'Deckard Rifle' was considered the brand name and 'Kentucky rifle' was the more broadly accepted nickname of this rifle.[6]
The settlers of western Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina soon gained a reputation for hardy independence and rifle marksmanship as a way of life, further reinforced by the performance of riflemen in the American Revolution as well as the War of 1812.[citation needed] In that war, the long rifle gained its more famous nickname the Kentucky Rifle, after a popular song "The Hunters of Kentucky", about Andrew Jackson and his victory at the Battle of New Orleans.[citation needed]
The reason for the American rifle's characteristic long barrel is a matter of some conjecture. The German gunsmiths working in America would have been very familiar with German rifles, which seldom had barrels longer than 30 inches (760 mm). The longer barrel gave the black powder more time to burn, increasing the muzzle velocity and accuracy. A rule of thumb used by some gunsmiths was to make the rifle no longer than the height of a customer's chin because of the necessity of seeing the muzzle while loading. The longer barrel also allowed for finer sighting. Some speculation is that a longer gun was easier to load from horseback by resting the butt of the rifle on the ground. This was not a consideration, as the rifles were not exclusively used from horseback, and making rifles long enough to be loaded in this fashion would make them inconveniently long to be loaded while on foot. Regardless of the reason, by the 1750s it was common to see frontiersmen carrying the new and distinctive style of rifle."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_rifle

http://www.saf.org/journal/16/colonialfirearmregulation.pdf

""The Second Amendment ain't about hunting." [1] The current debate concerning whether a particular gun is better suited for a hunting or sporting purpose completely misses the aim of the second amendment. The second amendment recognized a common law and natural law right, taken for granted as inalienable, to keep and bear arms. Additionally, the second amendment was directed at maintaining an armed citizenry for mutual defense, and perhaps most significantly, to protect against the tyranny of our own government. [2]

Colonial Americans possessed guns for a variety of purposes, including hunting, personal self-defense and mutual defense against the Indians, the Spanish, the Dutch, and the French. These necessities "put firearms in the hands of nearly everyone." [3] The only people denied this right, "Mulattoes, Negroes and Indians," were those who also enjoyed less than full benefits of citizenship. [4]
"

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Moncure1.html

Actually this one really is fascinating stuff, in that it directly contradicts your revisionist efforts to reframe the second amendment.  Lets read it in it;s entirely.

Copyright © 1991 by the Howard University School of Law; Thomas M. Moncure, Jr.


"The Second Amendment ain't about hunting." [1] The current debate concerning whether a particular gun is better suited for a hunting or sporting purpose completely misses the aim of the second amendment. The second amendment recognized a common law and natural law right, taken for granted as inalienable, to keep and bear arms. Additionally, the second amendment was directed at maintaining an armed citizenry for mutual defense, and perhaps most significantly, to protect against the tyranny of our own government. [2]

Colonial Americans possessed guns for a variety of purposes, including hunting, personal self-defense and mutual defense against the Indians, the Spanish, the Dutch, and the French. These necessities "put firearms in the hands of nearly everyone." [3] The only people denied this right, "Mulattoes, Negroes and Indians," were those who also enjoyed less than full benefits of citizenship. [4]

The tradition of an armed citizenry has long been recognized in England. [5] As early as 872 A.D., the "Great Fyrd" required both [p.590] nobles and peasants to keep arms that were appropriate to their status. [6] While the "Great Fyrd" was unsuccessful against the Norman invasion, the Assize of Arms of 1181 retained this tradition by, again, requiring the possession of arms. [7] The presence of an armed citizenry is credited, in part, for the failure of a feudal system to exist in England. [8]

Of more immediate interest to the Colonists were events that occurred during the revolutionary period of 17th century England. When the commonwealth government, under Oliver Cromwell, attempted to disarm Catholics, its force was met in kind following the restoration by James II's attempt to build a standing army composed of Catholics. [9] These abuses led to the adoption of the English Bill of Rights, which guaranteed that "subjects who are Protestants, may have arms for their defense suitable to their condition." [10]

Sir William Blackstone, the "[g]reat [e]xpositor of the English law," [11] noted that common law recognized the three principle rights of the people as "the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right of private property." [12] In the redress of private wrongs, the common law acknowledged self defense as the "primary law of nature so it is not, neither can it be, in fact, taken away by the law of society." [13] These rights were found to be illusory absent arms, so Blackstone described the "right of having arms for self-preservation and defense" as an auxiliary right. [14]

Two qualifications of the right to keep and bear arms were noted at common law. [15] The first concerned the suitability of an arm [p.591] to a particular class. The second qualification addressed the carrying of weapons so unusual as to cause a breach of the peace. Mere possession was not sufficient to constitute an offense, since conviction generally required the intent of "riding or going armed" to the terror of the populace. [16]

The prevalence of arms in colonial America, no less than in England, made the imposition of tyranny a dangerous proposition. In the 17th century, Royal Governor William Berkeley complained it was miserable to attempt to govern "a people where six parts of seaven [sic] at least are [p]oore [sic], [e]ndebted [sic], discontented and armed". [17] Thus it should be of little surprise that at the Revolution's onset, General Gage, in Massachusetts, and Lord Dunmore, in Virginia, first attempted to seize the colonists' gunpowder and arms.

At the Revolution, states' Bills of Rights typically included provisions which dealt with the militia and the right to bear arms. [18] Following independence, concern that the consolidated government might usurp individual liberty led the United States to enact the Bill of Rights. Patrick Henry, equating the potential tyranny of Congress to that of the Crown, was convinced that liberty could only be preserved with "downright force." [19] The prevalence of this opinion is reflected in Thomas Jefferson's famous suggestion that the "tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." [20]

The second amendment, when presented to the states for ratification, attracted remarkably little attention. [21] Because it embodied [p.592] fundamental common law and republican principles, the lack of comment was not surprising. [22] Federalist No. 46, written by James Madison, already addressed "the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." His description of the militia showed that he shared the same republican principles of the anti-federalists: "[c] itizens with their arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence." [23] Madison finally noted that in the "several kingdoms of Europe ... governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." [24]

The fear of a standing Army underlies the second amendment, [25] this fear is also reflected in the third amendment. [26] Senator William MacLay, from Pennsylvania, during the first federal Congress, bemoaned that with a standing army "we must soon forego our republican innocence" and in so doing "set apart a portion of our citizens for the purpose of inflicting [m] isery on our fellow [m]ortals." [27] In context, it should be noted that two of the amendments proposed by Congress, regarding the size of districts and compensation, were rejected.

The United States Supreme Court had no occasion to review the second amendment prior to the passage of the fourteenth amendment. Prior to the doctrine of selective incorporation, the cases heard in the 19th century are as unillustrative as they are unpleasant. One such case involved an attempt by 100 members of the Ku Klux Klan to disarm two men "of African descent." [28] Another concerned a worker's parade involving essentially a mini-army. [29] In these cases the Court held that the second amendment was a ban only to federal [p.593] action and thus not applicable to state action. [30]

The Court's refusal, in the 19th century, to extend the Bill of Rights protection to state action, even after passage of the fourteenth amendment, came as little surprise. Chief Justice Taney, in the infamous Dred Scott decision, had expressed concern that if free African-Americans were "entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens," they could "keep and carry arms wherever they went." [31]

Lack of constitutional protection in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries gave rise to gun laws which targeted certain racial and ethnic groups. [32] Specifically, Jim Crow legislation in the South and the Sullivan Law in New York assured that guns were not available to African- Americans, Italians and other such "undesirables." [33] These laws sought, as had General Gage and Lond Dunmore, sought to assure the subjugation of a people. [34]

The only case squarely dealing with the second amendment in this century, United States v. Miller, [35] has been cited as authority by both sides of the gun issue. This case challenged the National Firearms Act of 1934 [36] which restricted, but did not prohibit, the possession of certain firearms, including machine guns. The Miller Court refused to take judicial notice that a short barreled shotgun, had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," and was therefore not protected. [37]

Does Miller mean that only the Militia may have arms, or that the people may possess only arms suitable to service in the Militia? Professor A.E. Dick Howard found the latter reading a "disconcerting possibility," [38] though it was in accord with the intention of the founders. George Mason, asking rhetorically "[w]ho s the [p.594]

[m]ilitia?," responded that the militia is the "whole people." [39] Mason went on to express the concern that the militia of the future might exclude some of the people from its ranks.

Many civil libertarians, uncomfortable with the private possession of firearms, have found the militia prefatory clause of the second amendment a convenient exculpatory clause. The Supreme Court has not dealt directly with the constitutional militia, as opposed to the National Guard, but there is nothing to indicate that the militia, under second amendment analysis, is anything other than the "whole people." [40]

In Perpich v. Dep't of Defense, [41] the Court distinguished the "National Guard," the organized militia of the various states, from the "National Guard of the United States," a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the United States. [42] In reaching its decision, the Court did not need to explore the nature of the unorganized, or constitutional, militia. [43] All states and the federal government have enacted provisions dealing with the militia independent of the National [p.595] Guard. [44]

The greater issue of the second amendment revolved around whether it would be incorporated into the fourteenth amendment and thus be applicable to state action. While incorporation could be avoided by treating the right as collective rather than individual, the greater weight of constitutional interpretation and simple intellectual integrity dictates its incorporation. Chief Justice Rehnquist noted the term "the people" had the same meaning in the

first, second, fourth, ninth and tenth amendments. [45] Professor Sanford Levinson has also suggested the incongruity of reading "the people" as conveying individual rights in some amendments and as solely a collective right in the second. [46]

Current provisions regulating "assault weapons" reflect not only a disregard of constitutional history, but fundamental technical ignorance. [47] A true "assault rifle" is capable of selectively firing both fully automatically and semi-automatically, [48] and is currently regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934. [49] Recent "assault weapons" acts are aimed at semi-automatic rifles, as well as pistols and shotguns with certain cosmetic features, literally guns that "look" intimidating, but have a basic function and have been in existence for over 100 years. [50] [p.596]

It is a most pernicious form of elitism that preserves the rights of the wealthy to buy aesthetically elite guns, but deprives poor people access to firearms within their economic means. The recent attempt to deprive public housing tenants of their right to possess firearms has drawn the ire of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People because this deprivation, in effect, equates them with "felons and lunatics."

Calling a dog's tail a fifth leg does not change the tail, any more than calling a gun an "assault weapon" changes its basic function. Questioning the suitability of particular guns for hunting overlooks the potential suitability for purposes of self defense. As government is under no obligation "to protect an individual against private violence," [51] the people must retain a means of protecting themselves. Even if one adopts the conservative view of the ninth amendment, namely that rights at common law were preserved, the right to keep and bear arms exists independent of the second amendment.

The founders sought to protect arms from government interference, because those same arms might be needed to protect the people from government. They wanted to assure that the people remained both armed and dangerous to tyranny. [52] The Virginia Declaration of Rights not only reserved the right to overthrow a despotic government, but suggested it has an affirmative duty of the people:

[t]hat government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best ... is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal. [53] [p.597]

Mr. Mason's language remains unchanged in Virginia's current constitution. [54]

Our constitutional system has existed and prospered because of adherence to fundamental principles, and in particular to those liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights. [55] To suggest that the second amendment is entitled to less dignity than other amendments is to disparage the entire Bill of Rights. The second amendment is not about hunting but it is, in its final analysis, about liberty.

Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2012, 10:24:05 PM
fascinating stuff, but again, it is widely known that gun technology was present at the time, and gun ownership was common for the wealthy.

Wrong.  Not just the wealthy.  Everybody.

OMG, Pinky is a Democrat that can read!

arm 2  (ärm)
n.
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
2. A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms.
3. arms
a. Warfare: a call to arms against the invaders.
b. Military service: several million volunteers under arms; the profession of arms.
4. arms
a. Heraldry Bearings.
b. Insignia, as of a state, an official, a family, or an organization.

"Guns" are found on battleships, we're discussing "arms" a term which is interchangeable with "firearms".  The constitution makes no reference to "gats" nor "heaters" nor "pieces" nor any other colloquial term for "arms".  It does very specifically refer to "arms" however. 

Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2012, 10:37:40 PM

Quote from: Pinky on August 23, 2012, 10:32:46 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2012, 10:24:05 PM
fascinating stuff, but again, it is widely known that gun technology was present at the time, and gun ownership was common for the wealthy.

Wrong.  Not just the wealthy.  Everybody.

So you contend that Slaves, Native Americans, Disloyalists and Blacks were legally allowed to posess guns at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights?

Ugh.  I'll let Royal Governor William Berkeley do my contending.  Again.

The prevalence of arms in colonial America, no less than in England, made the imposition of tyranny a dangerous proposition. In the 17th century, Royal Governor William Berkeley complained it was miserable to attempt to govern "a people where six parts of seaven [sic] at least are [p]oore [sic], [e]ndebted [sic], discontented and armed". [17] Thus it should be of little surprise that at the Revolution's onset, General Gage, in Massachusetts, and Lord Dunmore, in Virginia, first attempted to seize the colonists' gunpowder and arms.

Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2012, 10:36:14 PM
actually the points I have brought up are not revisionist, unless these posts---which you apparently believe are in opposition--are also revisionist, since they arrive at the same conclusions.

The essay you cite here, merely states a response to a counter argument and attempts to conflate Justice Taney's court opinion that Black Citizens were allowed to carry arms just as White Citizens without respect to race with your own argument.

The issue of whether or not 'The People" refers either to the individual citizen or social compact as a whole is an argument that exists independently of what color of people were being lynched by the KKK.

Similarly, merely because this argument (which I am going to guess was unknown to you prior to this forum thread---am I right?) has been traded back and forth for a while, doesnt mean that the underlying issues are any different.

For example, would you agree that

a. guns are mentioned in the Constitution?

b.  that guns are specifically protected as a special technology in the Constitution?

c.  that the constitutional purpose for the Right to Bear Arms was 'just because' or 'sometimes people need killing'?

LOL.   So you are contending that:

"Guns" are not included in the definition of "arms" as used in the Second Amendment?

That the "special technology" of guns (whatever that is supposed to mean) is not protected in the Constitution? (As defined in the Miller case).

That you have found some legal or scholarly reference that says the Second Amendment is about "just because" or " sometimes people need killing"?  (We all know you made that up just to be inflammatory).

Why do you refuse to simply read the words of the men who wrote the Bill of Rights?  Why do you refuse to even acknowledge their clarity?

StephenDare!,

The "nuclear weapon" argument is moot.  A reasonable limitation on individual rights is a long standing legal principle.  The Miller case itself, while inadequate in many ways, was about that very subject.  That is why automatic weapons are so regulated today.  Other, more advanced arms are also outlawed.  The concensus was and has been that the weapons are limited to what a normal foot soldier might bear.  That has never been legally challenged, but is a good guide based on the Miller decision which upheld the short barreled shotgun ban based on its military application.

Let me ask you a theoretical question Stephen:

Does the second amendment grant the right of the people to bear arms, without the exclusion of firearms of any type? 

Yes or no?

Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2012, 10:59:02 PM

Quote from: Pinky on August 23, 2012, 10:53:35 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2012, 10:37:40 PM

Quote from: Pinky on August 23, 2012, 10:32:46 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2012, 10:24:05 PM
fascinating stuff, but again, it is widely known that gun technology was present at the time, and gun ownership was common for the wealthy.

Wrong.  Not just the wealthy.  Everybody.

So you contend that Slaves, Native Americans, Disloyalists and Blacks were legally allowed to posess guns at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights?

Ugh.  I'll let Royal Governor William Berkeley do my contending.  Again.

The prevalence of arms in colonial America, no less than in England, made the imposition of tyranny a dangerous proposition. In the 17th century, Royal Governor William Berkeley complained it was miserable to attempt to govern "a people where six parts of seaven [sic] at least are [p]oore [sic], [e]ndebted [sic], discontented and armed". [17] Thus it should be of little surprise that at the Revolution's onset, General Gage, in Massachusetts, and Lord Dunmore, in Virginia, first attempted to seize the colonists' gunpowder and arms.

He has failed you.

He failed to mention how many of them had guns, or whose were seized.  So back to the question.

Wrong again.  He says six out of seven.  He also says they're poor, which pretty much throws your "only the wealthy" parse out the window too.  Wrong again.

"Debunked positions"...Ha!  You are a funny guy.  Nothing you have said has been right or reasonable.  I have simply quoted the founding fathers including the authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Along with a few USSC decisions.  Just keep declaring yourself right StephenDare!.  What a joke.

And in what "text" did you find this:

"that the constitutional purpose for the Right to Bear Arms was 'just because' or 'sometimes people need killing'?"

Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2012, 11:04:54 PM
Also Pinky, the text of the article (published in 1991) is a position paper by Thomas M. Moncure, Jr., a well known ultra conservative writer.

It is not a court finding. ;)

From the same guy that quoted a cooking site for two pages in this very thread! 

This is the funniest you have been in a loooongggg time Dare!

Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2012, 11:13:17 PM

Quote from: Pinky on August 23, 2012, 11:01:42 PM
Let me ask you a theoretical question Stephen:

Does the second amendment grant the right of the people to bear arms, without the exclusion of firearms of any type? 

Yes or no?

The answer to that, obviously is no, as we have already listed firearms that are not legal.

Does it grant the right of people to bear arms, including firearms?  Yes.

Why do you ask?

Where in the Second Amendment does it specify which types of Firearms are not legal?

Laughable, just laughable excuses. 

And a backwards interpretation of "honesty".   

Pinky, have you figured him out yet?  This is not about an exchange of information.  Or even an honest disagreement.  No amount of documentation will ever be enough, or it will be "right wing".  You can (and will) disprove any poiint he makes and he will always say that you were wrong.  He has no memory, only talking points, diversions, and dishonesty.  At times amusing, StephenDare! is a gifted writer, but there is something seriously wrong going on in there.

Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2012, 11:09:43 PM

Quote from: Pinky on August 23, 2012, 11:02:56 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2012, 10:59:02 PM

Quote from: Pinky on August 23, 2012, 10:53:35 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2012, 10:37:40 PM

Quote from: Pinky on August 23, 2012, 10:32:46 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2012, 10:24:05 PM
fascinating stuff, but again, it is widely known that gun technology was present at the time, and gun ownership was common for the wealthy.

Wrong.  Not just the wealthy.  Everybody.

So you contend that Slaves, Native Americans, Disloyalists and Blacks were legally allowed to posess guns at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights?

Ugh.  I'll let Royal Governor William Berkeley do my contending.  Again.

The prevalence of arms in colonial America, no less than in England, made the imposition of tyranny a dangerous proposition. In the 17th century, Royal Governor William Berkeley complained it was miserable to attempt to govern "a people where six parts of seaven [sic] at least are [p]oore [sic], [e]ndebted [sic], discontented and armed". [17] Thus it should be of little surprise that at the Revolution's onset, General Gage, in Massachusetts, and Lord Dunmore, in Virginia, first attempted to seize the colonists' gunpowder and arms.

He has failed you.

He failed to mention how many of them had guns, or whose were seized.  So back to the question.

Wrong again.  He says six out of seven.  He also says they're poor, which pretty much throws your "only the wealthy" parse out the window too.  Wrong again.

It certainly does not say that he seized guns that belonged to all the colonists individually.  You can read it for yourself.

This is dangerously close to NotNow levels of dishonesty and prevarication, and I am rethinking whether or not to engage with you.

As I have said Ive made my points, whether or not you are able to discuss them with me any further.

He says that six out of seven at least of the citizens are armed, which disproves your contention that very few people had firearms. 

Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2012, 11:09:43 PM

This is dangerously close to NotNow levels of dishonesty and prevarication, and I am rethinking whether or not to engage with you.

Gee, I'm all sad.

Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2012, 11:29:43 PM

Quote from: Pinky on August 23, 2012, 11:22:51 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2012, 11:09:43 PM

Quote from: Pinky on August 23, 2012, 11:02:56 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2012, 10:59:02 PM

Quote from: Pinky on August 23, 2012, 10:53:35 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2012, 10:37:40 PM

Quote from: Pinky on August 23, 2012, 10:32:46 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2012, 10:24:05 PM
fascinating stuff, but again, it is widely known that gun technology was present at the time, and gun ownership was common for the wealthy.

Wrong.  Not just the wealthy.  Everybody.

So you contend that Slaves, Native Americans, Disloyalists and Blacks were legally allowed to posess guns at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights?

Ugh.  I'll let Royal Governor William Berkeley do my contending.  Again.

The prevalence of arms in colonial America, no less than in England, made the imposition of tyranny a dangerous proposition. In the 17th century, Royal Governor William Berkeley complained it was miserable to attempt to govern "a people where six parts of seaven [sic] at least are [p]oore [sic], [e]ndebted [sic], discontented and armed". [17] Thus it should be of little surprise that at the Revolution's onset, General Gage, in Massachusetts, and Lord Dunmore, in Virginia, first attempted to seize the colonists' gunpowder and arms.

He has failed you.

He failed to mention how many of them had guns, or whose were seized.  So back to the question.

Wrong again.  He says six out of seven.  He also says they're poor, which pretty much throws your "only the wealthy" parse out the window too.  Wrong again.

It certainly does not say that he seized guns that belonged to all the colonists individually.  You can read it for yourself.

This is dangerously close to NotNow levels of dishonesty and prevarication, and I am rethinking whether or not to engage with you.

As I have said Ive made my points, whether or not you are able to discuss them with me any further.

He says that six out of seven at least of the citizens are armed, which disproves your contention that very few people had firearms.

omg.....you seriously cannot be this half cocked, can you?

Does it say that six out of seven were armed with guns?  Do you even know the significance of this particular governor or his opinion?  Like what event this refers to?

OMG - You cannot be serious.  Are you suggesting that he was concerned about men who had hunting traps?  Sharpened sticks?  It's a quote from a paper discussing firearms Stephen. 

Furthermore, I'd say that the simple fact that he writes this in the 1700's is significance enough, in that it is a contemporaneous example of how prevalent firearms were at the time.  You can try to discredit historians if you want, but here is history himself speaking. 

And really Stephen, why are you getting all angry and shrill?  We're just kicking around ideas here.  No need to get all sweaty just because I think you're wrong, and oddly, almost pathologically incapable of comprehending that.

Quote from: stephendare on August 23, 2012, 11:43:36 PM
You see, this is the type of dishonest scholarship that so irritates people with historical revisionists.

Governor Berkeley was governor a hundred years before the american revolution, and the Bacon Rebellion was the event that led to the de arming of blacks, slaves, heretics (like the levelers) and native americans.

For your edification:
http://www.greanvillepost.com/2011/04/01/howard-zinn-chapter-3-persons-of-a-mean-and-vile-condition/

QuoteIN 1676, SEVENTY YEARS AFTER VIRGINIA WAS FOUNDED, a hundred years before it supplied leadership for the American Revolution, that colony faced a rebellion of white frontiersmen, joined by slaves and servants, a rebellion so threatening that the governor had to flee the burning capital of Jamestown, and England decided to send a thousand soldiers across the Atlantic, hoping to maintain order among forty thousand colonists. This was Bacon’s Rebellion. After the uprising was suppressed, its leader, Nathaniel Bacon, dead, and his associates hanged, Bacon was described in a Royal Commission report:

He was said to be about four or five and thirty years of age, indifferent tall but slender, black-hair’d and of an ominous, pensive, melancholly Aspect, of a pestilent and prevalent Logical discourse tending to atheisme… . He seduced the Vulgar and most ignorant people to believe (two thirds of each county being of that Sort) Soe that their whole hearts and hopes were set now upon Bacon. Next he charges the Governour as negligent and wicked, treacherous and incapable, the Lawes and Taxes as unjust and oppressive and cryes up absolute necessity of redress. Thus Bacon encouraged the Tumult and as the unquiet crowd follow and adhere to him, he listeth them as they come in upon a large paper, writing their name circular wise, that their Ringleaders might not be found out. Having connur’d them into this circle, given them Brandy to wind up the charme, and enjoyned them by an oath to stick fast together and to him and the oath being administered, he went and infected New Kent County ripe for Rebellion.

Bacon’s Rebellion began with conflict over how to deal with the Indians, who were close by, on the western frontier, constantly threatening. Whites who had been ignored when huge land grants around Jamestown were given away had gone west to find land, and there they encountered Indians. Were those frontier Virginians resentful that the politicos and landed aristocrats who controlled the colony’s government in Jamestown first pushed them westward into Indian territory, and then seemed indecisive in fighting the Indians? That might explain the character of their rebellion, not easily classifiable as either antiaristocrat or anti-Indian, because it was both.

Nathaniel Bacon. He was not a member of the "rabble".

And the governor, William Berkeley, and his Jamestown crowd-were they more conciliatory to the Indians (they wooed certain of them as spies and allies) now that they had monopolized the land in the East, could use frontier whites as a buffer, and needed peace? The desperation of the government in suppressing the rebellion seemed to have a double motive: developing an Indian policy which would divide Indians in order to control them (in New England at this very time, Massasoit’s son Metacom was threatening to unite Indian tribes, and had done frightening damage to Puritan settlements in “King Philip’s War”); and teaching the poor whites of Virginia that rebellion did not pay-by a show of superior force, by calling for troops from England itself, by mass hanging.

Violence had escalated on the frontier before the rebellion. Some Doeg Indians took a few hogs to redress a debt, and whites, retrieving the hogs, murdered two Indians. The Doegs then sent out a war party to kill a white herdsman, after which a white militia company killed twenty-four Indians. This led to a series of Indian raids, with the Indians, outnumbered, turning to guerrilla warfare. The House of Burgesses in Jamestown declared war on the Indians, but proposed to exempt those Indians who cooperated. This seemed to anger the frontiers people, who wanted total war but also resented the high taxes assessed to pay for the war.

Times were hard in 1676. “There was genuine distress, genuine poverty…. All contemporary sources speak of the great mass of people as living in severe economic straits,” writes Wilcomb Washburn, who, using British colonial records, has done an exhaustive study of Bacon’s Rebellion. It was a dry summer, ruining the corn crop, which was needed for food, and the tobacco crop, needed for export. Governor Berkeley, in his seventies, tired of holding office, wrote wearily about his situation: “How miserable that man is that Governes a People where six parts of seaven at least are Poore Endebted Discontented and Armed.”

His phrase “six parts of seaven” suggests the existence of an upper class not so impoverished. In fact, there was such a class already developed in Virginia. Bacon himself came from this class, had a good bit of land, and was probably more enthusiastic about killing Indians than about redressing the grievances of the poor. But he became a symbol of mass resentment against the Virginia establishment, and was elected in the spring of 1676 to the House of Burgesses. When he insisted on organizing armed detachments to fight the Indians, outside official control, Berkeley proclaimed him a rebel and had him captured, whereupon two thousand Virginians marched into Jamestown to support him. Berkeley let Bacon go, in return for an apology, but Bacon went off, gathered his militia, and began raiding the Indians.

Bacon’s “Declaration of the People” of July 1676 shows a mixture of populist resentment against the rich and frontier hatred of the Indians. It indicted the Berkeley administration for unjust taxes, for putting favorites in high positions, for monopolizing the beaver trade, and for not protecting the western formers from the Indians. Then Bacon went out to attack the friendly Pamunkey Indians, killing eight, taking others prisoner, plundering their possessions.

There is evidence that the rank and file of both Bacon’s rebel army and Berkeley’s official army were not as enthusiastic as their leaders. There were mass desertions on both sides, according to Washburn. In the fall, Bacon, aged twenty-nine, fell sick and died, because of, as a contemporary put it, “swarmes of Vermyn that bred in his body.” A minister, apparently not a sympathizer, wrote this epitaph:

Bacon is Dead I am sorry at my heart,

That lice and flux should take the hangmans part.

The rebellion didn’t last long after that. A ship armed with thirty guns, cruising the York River, became the base for securing order, and its captain, Thomas Grantham, used force and deception to disarm the last rebel forces. Coming upon the chief garrison of the rebellion, he found four hundred armed Englishmen and Negroes, a mixture of free men, servants, and slaves. He promised to pardon everyone, to give freedom to slaves and servants, whereupon they surrendered their arms and dispersed, except for eighty Negroes and twenty English who insisted on keeping their arms. Grantham promised to take them to a garrison down the river, but when they got into the boat, he trained his big guns on them, disarmed them, and eventually delivered the slaves and servants to their masters. The remaining garrisons were overcome one by one. Twenty-three rebel leaders were hanged.

It was a complex chain of oppression in Virginia. The Indians were plundered by white frontiersmen, who were taxed and controlled by the Jamestown elite. And the whole colony was being exploited by England, which bought the colonists’ tobacco at prices it dictated and made 100,000 pounds a year for the King. Berkeley himself, returning to England years earlier to protest the English Navigation Acts, which gave English merchants a monopoly of the colonial trade, had said:

… we cannot but resent, that forty thousand people should be impoverish’d to enrich little more than forty Merchants, who being the only buyers of our Tobacco, give us what they please for it, and after it is here, sell it how they please; and indeed have forty thousand servants in us at cheaper rates, than any other men have slaves….

From the testimony of the governor himself, the rebellion against him had the overwhelming support of the Virginia population. A member of his Council reported that the defection was “almost general” and laid it to “the Lewd dispositions of some Persons of desperate Fortunes” who had “the Vaine hopes of takeing the Countrey wholley out of his Majesty’s handes into their owne.” Another member of the Governor’s Council, Richard Lee, noted that Bacon’s Rebellion had started over Indian policy. But the “zealous inclination of the multitude” to support Bacon was due, he said, to “hopes of levelling.”

“Levelling” meant equalizing the wealth. Levelling was to be behind countless actions of poor whites against the rich in all the English colonies, in the century and a half before the Revolution.

Right Stephen - it proves MY contention that firearms were common and prevalent at the time of the writing of the Bill Of Rights, and indeed had been so for a very long time prior to that.  By your own accounting, some hundred years prior.

Sheesh.  And I'm the revisionist??

Look Skip, we're clearly not going to agree on this, more that anything else because I still have absolutely no idea what your position on firearms being used for self-defense are, beyond "Everyone else is wrong".  Oh, and that you don't seem to like NotNow very much.  But really, as far as what you actually believe, or the position you're advocating, it's a total mystery to me.  All I'm seeing from you are constant, frequently nasty efforts to disprove and disqualify anything said by anyone else.

While I'm sure that endeavor is wholly, even pathologically satisfying to you, it's grown tiresome to me.  And so I think I'm just gonna leave this one in the "agree to disagree" pile.  You don't think firearms are cool?  Don't own them.  I fully support you not being anywhere near firearms frankly.  I however take great comfort in having firearms, and indeed, having them at hand most of the time.  And fortunately for me, I'm allowed to do so, because a whole lot of people read the constitution differently than you seem to. 

I bid you peace.

Heller..........

Quote from: stephendare on August 24, 2012, 12:17:29 AM
By the way, welcome to the forums Pinky.

Its a pleasure to have you aboard!

Good debate.

;)

"That's not an argument; thats just contradiction!"

"No it's not!"

- Monty Python

Quote from: Pinky on August 24, 2012, 12:31:39 AM

Quote from: stephendare on August 24, 2012, 12:17:29 AM
By the way, welcome to the forums Pinky.

Its a pleasure to have you aboard!

Good debate.

;)

"That's not an argument; thats just contradiction!"

"No it's not!"

- Monty Python

I'm with you Pinky.  I was duped again into thinking an honest debate about a subject could be had with Stephen.  Turns out he along with a few other revisionists are able to turn historical fact into fiction.  This of course required to get to the end game.  Discredit what the constitution says... and very clearly means... in virtually any argument... so legislation usurping the constitution can be passed.  It is paramount for stephen to show that "arms" means crossbows(rare), traps(just weird), and swords or sabres(slightly less rare than crossbows).  You are now just being stubborn Stephen.  This is a common tactic... we have just wasted six(6) pages on the meaning or arms in the second amendment... Really?

Dedicated to Pinky... ;D

http://www.youtube.com/v/kQFKtI6gn9Y

Then why can't I have a personal nuclear bomb? It's an arm.

His point is that it's not a catch-all, we can (and do) regulate some arms and allow others.

Not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 24, 2012, 07:23:46 AM
Then why can't I have a personal nuclear bomb? It's an arm.

His point is that it's not a catch-all, we can (and do) regulate some arms and allow others.

Not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

Chris... if that was his point we would be wayyyyyyyyyyyyy past this already.

lol... I'm done... enjoy your weekend... it is supposed to be nice.  8)

Do you think that StephenDare! even realizes that he didn't actually PROVE any of his points?  He just says it is so.  I saw a good bit of verification from others.  I have even shown (several times) the reasons that the "nuclear weapon" argument is moot.  And yet we still get the lengthy post about all of the arguments that were disproved, when in fact, just the opposite occurred and SD's  points were laid to rest one by one.  Chris, a simple review of a few USSC cases would answer your concerns (read the thread).   Just amazing.

Love and kisses,
Troll

Defending your home in UK...

QuoteFarm tenant arrested after burglars shot was 'plagued by break-ins'

By Nick Britten
7:44AM BST 03 Sep 2012

The man is believed to have grabbed a legally owned gun after they were disturbed by the break-in early yesterday.

He is understood to have fired at the intruders who then fled the isolated house at Melton Mowbray, Leics, before calling the police.

Minutes later, an ambulance was called to treat a man with gunshot injuries nearby. It is understood that call was made by one of the suspected burglars.

The arrested man's mother said: "This is not the first time they have been broken into.

"They have been robbed three or four times. One of them was quite nasty.

"They have not been injured but property has been stolen."

Local farmers said the area has been increasingly targeted by car thieves.

One said: "We had three Land Rovers stolen. We had fitted one with a tracker and it was recovered in Birmingham."

A second man was later treated for gunshot injuries after arriving at Leicester Royal Infirmary, 10 miles from the scene of the shooting. Neither of the men is said to be seriously injured.

Yesterday the businessman and his wife were arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm. Four men, understood to be the suspected burglars, were also arrested.

The case will reignite the debate over a householder’s right to defend his property, which began in the late 1990s after the farmer Tony Martin shot two burglars at his remote Norfolk home. In 1999, Martin fired at Brendan Fearon, 29, and Fred Barras, 16, after they broke into the house in Emneth Hungate.

Three shots were fired, Barras was hit in the back and despite escaping through a window died moments later. Martin was convicted of murder and jailed for life, which was reduced on appeal to manslaughter and five years’ jail.

In 2009, the millionaire businessman Munir Hussain fought back with a metal pole and a cricket bat against a knife-wielding burglar who tied up his family at their home in Buckinghamshire. Hussain was jailed for two and a half years, despite his attacker being spared prison.

Appeal judges reduced the sentence to a year’s jail, suspended.

The case prompted David Cameron to announce that home owners and shopkeepers would have the right to protect themselves against burglars and robbers.

Last year, Peter Flanagan, 59, who fatally stabbed a burglar armed with a machete at his home in Salford, Great Manchester, escaped prosecution after the Crown Prosecution Service ruled that he was acting in self defence.

Yesterday the Melton Mowbray cottage was sealed off by police. Welby Grange Farm is owned by John Hobill, 84, and his wife Evelyn, 76, and is the registered address for JT and RT Hobill, which lists itself as a farming business.

A woman who answered the phone said they were “not allowed” to talk about the incident. She said the cottage was privately rented and the incident was nothing to do with the family that owned the farm. She said the person living there was not a farmer.

A Leicestershire Police spokesman said: “A 35-year-old man and a 43-year-old woman were arrested in Melton on suspicion of GBH and four men, aged 27, 23, 31 and 33, were arrested at Leicester Royal Infirmary on suspicion of aggravated burglary.” All remain in custody.

Quote from: stephendare on July 11, 2014, 06:23:44 PM

Quote from: NotNow on August 20, 2012, 07:02:04 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 03:53:28 PM
Since you are going to go Constitutional on the subject, Bridge Troll, where in the Constitution does it even mention guns?

Um, yes, it does.

And look!  I am right again!

I don't have to underline the word "guns".  You asked where the Constitution mentioned guns.  It is in the second amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Quote from: stephendare on July 11, 2014, 06:45:10 PM

Quote from: NotNow on July 11, 2014, 06:43:03 PM

Quote from: stephendare on July 11, 2014, 06:23:44 PM

Quote from: NotNow on August 20, 2012, 07:02:04 PM

Quote from: stephendare on August 20, 2012, 03:53:28 PM
Since you are going to go Constitutional on the subject, Bridge Troll, where in the Constitution does it even mention guns?

Um, yes, it does.

And look!  I am right again!

underline the word gun in The Constitution then.

We will wait for the fullness of your reading skills to manifest themselves.

I'll type slowly so that you can follow.  The. word. ARMS. is. inclusive.  It includes "firearms".  Let me just quote a FEW references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

"The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals[1][2] to keep and bear arms.[3][4][5][6] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[10][11]

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision, expressly holding the amendment to protect an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] Despite these decisions, the debate between the gun control and gun rights movements and related organizations continues.[15]"

http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm

"There is considerable confusion about the legal theory underlying the "right to keep and bear arms". This is a brief outline for a clarification of the discussion of this issue.

(1) The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not establish the right to keep and bear arms. None of the provisions of the Constitution establish any "natural" rights. They recognize such rights, but the repeal of such provisions would not end such rights. Such rights were considered by many of the Framers as obvious or "self-evident", but they were immersed in the prevailing republican thought of the day, as expressed in the writings of Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Madison, Hamilton, and others, which discussed "natural rights" in some detail. Others argued that at least some of the rights needed to be made explicit in the Bill of Rights to avoid having future generations with less understanding of republican theory weaken in their defense of those rights. That has turned out to have been a good idea.

(2) The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right of individuals under the theory of democratic government. This was clearly the understanding and intent of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution and was a long-established principle of English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, which is considered to be a part of constitutional law for purposes of interpreting the written Constitution.

(3) What the Second Amendment also does is recognize the right, power, and duty of able-bodied persons (originally males, but now females also) to organize into militias and defend the state. It effectively recognizes that all citizens have military and police powers, and the "able-bodied" ones -- the militia -- also have military and police duties, whether exercised in an organized manner or individually in a crisis. "Able-bodied" is a term of art established by English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, and is the only qualification besides citizenship on what constitutes the "militia". While not well defined in modern terms, it is somewhat broader than just able-"bodied": implicit is also "able-minded" and "virtuous". In other words, persons might be excluded who were physically able to bear arms but who were mentally or morally defective. Defense of the "state" includes self-defense and defense of one's family and friends who are, after all, part of the state, but by establishing the defense of the state as primary a basis is laid for requiring a citizen to risk or sacrifice his life in defense of the state and is thus a qualification on the implicit right of self-defense, which is considered to prevail in situations in which self-sacrifice is not called for.

(4) The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly."

You might want to note the last paragraph.  This stuff could be researched by a second grader.  The points have been proven.  You are wrong.  The meaning of the Constitution is clear and well documented. 

Let  me know when you want to be educated again.