|
Quote:
The intent of the founders was clear. Anyone who still tries to deny that will never change their point of view, regardless of the evidence supporting it. |
Quote:
|
If it is so awesome to own any weapon and in many places, without a background check, age minimum, then why won't the gun loving NRA allow them in at their conventions....and yet those folks don't complain? But, openly carrying assault weapons into a grocery store, is perfectly sane.
|
Quote:
The NRA, in the instance(s) quoted, was merely following the wishes of law enforcement in the area where the convention(s) in question were being held. I have personally attended NRA events where carrying firearms wasn't prohibited by law, and where most of the people there were carrying. |
Quote:
Huffing Post: "The NRA posted an announcement on its website explaining that Secret Service barred carrying firearms into the convention because several prominent Republicans ― including former President Donald Trump ― will speak there. Attendees will also have to leave their selfie sticks" |
A little history on the Second Amendment.
James Madison is credited as the father of the Constitution. There were many equally important delegates representing their respective States during the debates and drafting of the Constitution. One of the most important in attendance was George Mason of Virginia. He was the architect of the Virginia Declaration of Rights which was the template for our Bill of Rights. Several delegates, including Mason, refused to sign the Constitution because Rights were not enshrined within its text. For the majority, including Madison, they did not want to enshrine the Rights within the Constitution because they were concerned it would be construed to limiting the Rights of the People to just those enumerated with the Constitution, a "parchment barrier". Many states made it clear their legislatures would not ratify the Constitution unless the Rights of the People were addressed. The delegates struck a compromise and decided to handle this via Amendments and the Bill of Rights. Madison submitted 20 Amendments to the House of Representatives. These were debated and on August 24, 1787 the House approved 17 Amendments and sent them to the Senate. The Senate approved some, rejected some, and rewrote some, sending 12 Amendments back to the House. The House approved the 12 Amendments and sent them back to the Senate who also approved them. The Senate sent the 12 Amendments to the State legislatures on September 28, 1787. By December 17, 1791 the required 3/4 State approval had been reached on 10 Amendments which became our Bill of Rights. Two of the Amendments were rejected. One of the rejected Amendments was finally passed in 1992 becoming the 27th Amendment. It is worth noting that the Rights were not enumerated in priority order. Our 1st Amendment was originally the 3rd Amendment, our 2nd Amendment was originally the 4th Amendment and the 27th Amendment was originally the 2nd Amendment. ******* On the 2nd Amendment text. This is the text as it was proposed by the House of Representatives to the Senate: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person." The Senate rewrote the text and this is what was sent to the States and approved. "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." Now, we can look at the words above in Samuel Johnson's Dictionary, which was the dictionary used by the Founding Fathers. Definitions Well regulated means to make regular as in well trained, such as the British Regulars. Militia means trainbands or the part of the community trained to martial exercise necessary means indispensably requisite security means protection or defense free means not enslaved State means the public or community Right means just claim keep means to retain in custody bear means to carry arms means weapons of offense or armour of defense infringed means violate, destroy or hinder We can rewrite the 2nd Amendment using these definitions and it would be: "A part of the community well trained to martial exercise, being indispensably requisite to the protection or defense of an unenslaved public, the just claim of the people to retain in custody and to carry weapons of offense or armour of defense, shall not be hindered, violated or destroyed." I think it is important to note that for the first two years of the Revolutionary War it was fought entirely with privately owned arms. It was not until 1777 and the agreement with France were arms imported for the war effort. The original text, the original meaning of the words, and the very writings of our Founding Fathers clearly, at that time and thereafter, expresses their intent to ensure that the People would always remain Free and not enslaved to a tyrannical government. It is understood that a government assumes its powers by the consent of the governed. Without the ability to withdraw that consent, by force when necessary, a people is enslaved to that government. In 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to John Adams son-in-law regarding the newly drafted Constitution. In his letter he stated: "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." I would encourage everyone who has not read the Declaration of Independence in a while to do so. It clearly expresses the mindset of our Founding Fathers. Publius Returns – Sheltered in the shade of the Tree of Liberty is what separates Americans from the rest of the world. |
For anyone interested. I've started a new club in The Villages called the Constitution Study club. It can be found in the drop down menus above: Entertainment/Clubs and then search for Constitution.
It is new and we have not had a meeting yet. I'm reaching out to secure a meeting place at one of the Rec centers. I'm thinking of Bacall in the beginning and if it grows in size i'd like to move it to Eisenhower. Once I get that approval I will post the day and time. I'm very passionate about the Constitution and have found when I speak in public on the topic it is truly a non-partisan topic. I still believe our Constitution is the answer to the distractions we face daily. In my personal library I have over 70 books on the Constitution and our Founding Fathers at least half of my books are over 100 years old, the oldest being Samuel Johnson's Dictionary printed in 1785. |
Second Amendment | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
This is interesting. I had Constitutional Law at the U of MN Law School. It was taught by Daniel Farber. This was way back in 1986-1987 though. He co-wrote one of the texts used by many law schools back then. This looks like one of the more current ones-- Farber, Eskridge, Frickey, and Schacter's Cases and Materials on Constitutional Law: Themes for the Constitution's Third Century, 6th - 9781634607643 - West Academic The Second Amendment in Law and History | The New Press Sorry! Something went wrong! Guns Carl T. Bogus, Professor of Law, Roger Williams University. Quote:
|
Quote:
We are a nation of laws and the People are the final arbiters of those laws as reflected by those we elect to create said laws. I think we forget that. Consider taking part in the Constitution Study club. |
Quote:
I went to the NRA convention in Nashville a few years back and the convention center where the event was held, a property owned by the city of Nashville, had the policy of no firearms on the premises, not the NRA. The NRA doesn't own convention centers, the organization rent the facilities and must follow the rules of the owning authority. |
Quote:
Ignoring an astounding level of ignorance of weaponry, have you considered the fact that the height of emergency care in 1776 was a tourniquet and a bone saw without anesthesia -- if you were lucky enough to get shot in a limb (rather than the body or head) -- and within screaming range of a doctor? Thank heavens lunatics have access to so-called "military grade" weapons! Otherwise, they might be forced to use a really devastating weapon, like a common semi-automatic 30-06 deer rifle! The reason the AR15 uses such a small 22 caliber round is so that a soldier can carry more of it for their fully-automatic M4 rifles. In a true wartime environment, with fully-automatic weapons, quantity is more deadly than caliber. This is not the case, with a single-shot, non-automatic weapon like a 30-06 or AR15 -- or for that matter, a 1776 English Brown Bess. Believe me, if you have a choice between being shot by a modern AR15 or 250-year-old, 75 Caliber Brown Bess, take the AR15! |
Quote:
Wake up! |
Quote:
One has to consider the efficiency of the weapon within the context of how it was used. From the Revolution up to (and through, in many cases) the Civil War, armed conflicts, excluding of course guerrilla-type fighting, armies fought rank upon rank, shoulder to shoulder. In that type of fighting the Brown Bess was devastating, particularly because many troops adopted the "buck and ball" load: a single ball of the caliber of the musket in question (in the case of the Brown Bess, a .75 caliber ball, though the concept was adopted for other similar weapons as well), with several round lead balls of smaller caliber rammed on the top of the large ball. It wasn't very accurate but a distances of 50 yards or less (the average distance between the combatant forces) but it didn't have to be. The effect was similar to a shotgun with single- or double-00 buckshot, "devastating" is a mild word to use. No good at anything approaching long range, but it didn't have to be. Modern arms are governed (more or less) by the Hague Convention of 1899, which evolved, more or less, into the Geneva Convention rules, which didn't exist back then. No exploding rounds, no expanding bullets, etc. But the post to which this response is directed is correct. I don't want to be shot by anything, but if I had no other choice BUT to be shot, I'd choose the .223 round over the Brown Bess and similar weapons' "buck and ball" load any time. |
Imagine those big white wigs, short heavy pants, ruffled shirts and vests being worn now? Not any crazier looking than saggy pants and backward hats.
|
Sickness and Disease in the Continental Army | David W. Johnston
Lack of knowledge about medicine and supplies were a huge problem for Revolutionary War soldiers. Quote:
We should try to do better, though, with the understanding of mental illness. That science has a very long journey ahead of it to get anywhere near knowledge of the human body. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Australia chose to eliminate the semi-auto rifles. I considered that a smart choice and a good trade-off. |
The constitution was written with general words that describe a whole group of things when they meant ALL of the group. Some simple examples of groups of things vs specific things.
Books... dictionary (a subset of all books) Food... wheat (a subset of all foods) Speech... newspapers (a subset of all types of speech) Shall... will (just a portion of the meaning of shall) Religion... Christianity (a subset of all religions) Arms... musket (a subset of all arms) If they meant muskets, then why did they not say it that way? Simply put, they meant all arms for all of the population. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
First of all, semi-automatic rifles are not limited (despite what a lot of people think) to AR-15 type weapons. Best estimates are about 15 million AR-15 - type weapons in private hands with about another 3 million AK - types (guns dot com). Add to that another several million (probably) military surplus - type rifles such as the M1 Garand and Carbine which were put into civilian hands by the truckload after WWII for practically peanuts. But it isn't just military-style semi-autos. Semi-automatics for sporting purposes have been sold in the U.S. ever since 1903 and there are literally dozens if not hundreds of calibers, variations, etc. etc. out there. And add to that the millions of semi-auto handguns that are in private hands (estimated 85% of all handgun purchases since 1990 have been of semi-auto pistols) and the sheer number becomes staggering. In close quarters a semi-auto handgun is just as deadly as a rifle if not more so, and high-capacity clips are everywhere. The Kel-Tec PMR-30 for example can hold 30 rounds of .22 Magnum ammo. Then there are the hybrids; semi-auto rifles that use pistol ammo, with the magazines often being interchangeable: the Ruger PC Carbine, for example, which is a semi-auto rifle that comes stock with a 17-round clip...but it will also accept Glock 9 MM pistol clips up to 33 rounds, so one can own both a semi-auto rifle and a semi-auto pistol that uses the exact same ammo and clips, and are interchangeable. Then, of course, there is the .22 long rifle rimfire cartridge, the cartridge which, according to some, has killed more people than any other single cartridge. I'm not sure I believe that but considering the sheer number of semi-auto pistols and rifles out there chambering the cartridge, I suppose it is possible. But just on the assumption that our government DOES decide to ban semi-autos...just how would that, realistically speaking, be accomplished? |
Quote:
I guess we can expect you to carpet bomb us with “your views” now that you’ve returned? |
Quote:
• Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2021 | Statista |
Quote:
.........Personally, I would want the same thing to happen with semi-auto pistols after about 10 years from now. .........I know that none of that will actually happen because the NRA and the gun manufacturers care more about money than American childrens' lives and they have their DEVIL hooks into the average gun owner |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The statistics that you quoted merely means that pistols are more available in the home than are rifles. Statistics can be misleading. But, the rifle is a superior killing tool to the pistol for attacking crowds of people. And obviously, if pistols were better at mass murder, then the armies of the world would carry only pistols, not rifles. |
Quote:
Video: Australia forcing people into quarantine camps despite negative COVID tests, reports say | American Military News It is easy to take away your Rights when you can't defend yourself. Police State: Australia Recaptures Three Teens Who Escaped COVID Concentration Camp |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Anyone who does not fear the power of the government is being foolish. Kindly give us a list of rifles that cost $5,000 or more and the sales figures. AR styled rifles are predominantly used in shooting sports (3 gun competitions), hunting wild boar and ferrel hogs, and target practice. Of course, anti-gun people don't let facts get in the way of spewing nonsense. |
Quote:
The first semi-automatic rifle was produced in 1885, first semi-automatic pistol was produced in 1892 and the first semi-automatic shotgun was produced in 1902. They've been around for over 125 years. All of a sudden anti-gun people who refuse to be educated on the subject make wild claims rooted in their imagination. I'd be happy to meet you at the range and give you a free lesson. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The typical cyclic rate of a semi-automatic rifle is 600-900 rounds per minute, or 10-15 rounds per second. Most semi-automatic rifles are magazine fed with 10-30 round magazines. Therefore, a shooter would empty that magazine in 1-3 seconds and need to reload. Pump action rifles are not common. The Remington Model 7600 for example is a pump action rifle available in four calibers. It's capacity ranges from 4 to 10. Attempting to operate a pump action at any speed resembling a semi-automatic would require a significant amount of arm movement which in turn would move the muzzle all of the place and most certainly not on target. That very reason is why most hunter opt for a semi-automatic. A lever action would be even slower unless it's been modified for speed competition. Again, let's go to the range so you can gain some first hand knowledge. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:45 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by
DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.