RRC Archives

The Founding Fathers wrote: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.

So, with this bill, is the right to bear arms being infringed upon or is it the people complaining about infringing on the rights of a well-regulated militia (i.e. National Guard in modern times)? [/quote]

Charlie, you are ignorant of history, aren't you. Go back and read the quotes provided above from Jefferson, Adams, Henry, Mason, Madison, Lee, and Webster. They make it clear that when the founders said "the people" they meant the people. And just in case you missed it, the Supreme Court of the U. S. has ruled that they meant the people, not the National Guard. It's an individual right, not collective. Get used to it.

L K Day wrote:....Charlie, you are ignorant of history, aren't you.

Clearly I am. Can you link to an op-ed or a blog for me so I can be smarter?

Just wanted to point out the wording in Article 2 is pretty vague and that was your reference. You'll note I did not say anything in regards to Maxxorman's post. I should have quoted "Article 2" instead of Founding Fathers, but it didn't flow very well.

L K Day wrote:...It's an individual right, not collective. Get used to it.

Oh I am used to it. I love shooting and I celebrate that fact. How have I ever implied I was anti-gun?

I read into it even more. The founding fathers said it is our DUTY to overthrow tyrannical governments. At the time, the right to bear arms was restricted by other governments in order to control the people. They saw an armed population as a way to keep the government in check. Along those same lines, restricting what we can own restricts our ability to overthrow the government when needed. The founding fathers would not approve of restrictions.

awesome- adds legitimacy to the Rodney King riots- a rogue police Dept is reprensentation of a rogue city govt that is sanctioned by a state govt that is/or is not (Civil War not about slavery now?) controlled by a federal govt... so killing the POTUS is a legitimate act of defiance against a tyrannical govt- I have exorcised the demon!

Shit Cranky, armed rebellion is the last resort, not the first.

your right, I was wanting to enjoy a good book by the fireplace tonight anyway

Registering guns and passing tests will put guns in responsible hands (on average) and make extant guns in irresponsible hands illegal and subject these possessors to arrest. These are pro-society moves. Seems fair to me too.

L K Day wrote:

The Founding Fathers wrote: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.

So, with this bill, is the right to bear arms being infringed upon or is it the people complaining about infringing on the rights of a well-regulated militia (i.e. National Guard in modern times)?

L K Day wrote:Charlie, you are ignorant of history, aren't you. Go back and read the quotes provided above from Jefferson, Adams, Henry, Mason, Madison, Lee, and Webster. They make it clear that when the founders said "the people" they meant the people. And just in case you missed it, the Supreme Court of the U. S. has ruled that they meant the people, not the National Guard. It's an individual right, not collective. Get used to it.

F the founders Larry, they meant free white non-Tory men.

caribe wrote: F the founders Larry, they meant free white non-Tory men.

And with that argument we toss the Constitution into the waste bin of history. Sorry, but no thanks. The real brilliance of the constitution is that the ideas contained therein are even more profound than the founders may have realized. Concepts like one man, one vote are much more fair when women and minorities are included. It's really not all about a bunch of dead white guys, you know.

It was about land owning white guys and 3/5 of the slaves they owned.
So we fixed that little over sight of the constitution.
Why not fix other oversights as well. It seems to me the writers of the constitution were writing the second amendment when there was a very rural, sparsely populated small country and they had just recently fought a war of liberation against a tyrannical regime that had taken their crude single round guns away. That to me does not sound forward thinking but reactionary to the context of the times.
Many more people, technological advances/ increased lethality of weapons, much different demographics, etc, that the founding fathers couldn't have anticipated- Shouldn't that be revised to reflect the new realities of these times?