Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Second Amendment came from Articles of Confederation

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 18, 2012, 7:26 p.m. EST by brightonsage (4494)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

In the American Revolution, a loosely-affiliated group of colonial states, operating under the Articles of Confederation (1777-87), provided arms to those serving in well-regulated militias. Art VI of the Articles stated in part: “…Every state shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed…and shall provide…a proper quantity of arms…”

When the Founders realized the Articles were too weak, and the nation needed a stronger central government, they adopted the U.S. Constitution, which created a federal system, and delegated to Congress the power to raise an Army. The new arrangement concerned some, as they feared a rogue President might use the Army for his own personal purposes, to overthrow their liberties.

So, guess what was so important that it was left out of the Constitution altogether? Any reference to arms either private or government owned.

The Second Amendment is just that, an amendment, which means it wasn't even a part of the Constitution until some of my relatives helped stage the Shays's Rebellion and "lobbied for a statement of rights similar to those they already had in the Massachussets Bay Colony. But the language above was borrowed from the Articles of Confederation, under which the big bankers were foreclosing on every landowner's property and evicting them. Sound familiar?

Subsequent Acts of Congress, such as the Militia Act of 1792, which ordered every 18 to 45 year old man to be “enrolled in the militia” and to “provide himself with a good musket or firelock…or with a good rifle” showed the Founders were connecting the right to bear arms with enlistment in a militia.

I know five members of the Supreme Court can't read English, but four of them can. And I think you can, as well.

Just because the Supreme Court had five votes for it doesn't make it right, or true, or accurate, does it? It only makes it the law, for now.



Read the Rules


[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Your last two sentences do not make sense. Are you saying that the language being nearly the same as the Articles of Confederation is a coincidence?

It isn't as if they had never seen the A of C. They (some of them) were involved in writing it also.

If they had wanted to say "All residents have a right to own any weapon whatsoever." they could have said it.


[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Some would say it does. Congress apparently can deem all able bodies men as part of the militia as evidenced by the draft. Either everybody is in it or they aren't. The first half must mean something and can't be ignored. The problem they were trying to solve (and it wasn't looking ahead 250 years) it was addressing the lack of arms to defend the newly independent country after the experience of the Virginia militia having zero guns and other colonies having less than half armed with more than pikes and halberds.

They were relatively unsuccessful as evidenced by the war of 1812. The words of the A of C was more of an "unfunded mandate" than a broad right. They couldn't afford to arm the disbanded army as militia men since the debt was so large and their ability to levy taxes and the ability of the citizens to pay them so weak .

I don't think treating those words to mean, "All residents have a right to own any weapon whatsoever.." They didn't say it, and they didn't mean it, and I don't believe that if they were alive today, they try to convince people that is what it should mean.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2239) 1 year ago

Actually, "the right to bear arms" bears its origins even further back in old English law. The bottom line is he who holds the gun is the one who holds the power. That's been recognized since ancient times. The problems start when the power is being abused.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Lord Acton said, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." The first time you notice power, it is being misused. The problem starts when power is created. Money is power. In the same breath in which it is created, it must be harnessed.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2239) 1 year ago

Let's not stop with money. The gun provides for the ultimate form of power. He who has the gun, can do what he wants. He can even take the money!

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I am good with that.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Lots of important stuff wasnt in the constitution, or even included when they started amending it.

Lets not forget what type of people created this thing back then, and their views on anyone not like them. At this point in time, I dont think we should take anything they wrote or didnt write too importantly.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

And, of course, you are right. Start with equality for everybody and I mean everybody. So, we have amended it many times and it is obvious to most that there are several other changes needed. Scalia might take note that with as many changes are finally needed the Constitution starting to breathe and is much more a living document, changing to serve the times well, rather than a static document trying to prolong the subjugation that lack of foresight and political cowardice clearly allowed to become a part of it.

And the second amendment is another artifact of the past that should quickly be replaced. there are several others.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I think the second amendment simply needs to be ch anged to state specifically what "arms" are. Arms could include anything.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Not enough. It is still a totally ambiguous jumble of words. It should spell out in a paragraph what is allowed, what is regulated, who has what rights and who has jurisdiction.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

Big Pharmacy Lobby behind School Shootings? Arurora Shooting? Guy on the Radio is saying all these shooters, shooters of kids are on drugs/pharmaceuticals.

The government is making the killing about Guns. But even mentally ill people can't shoot kids or other people in most cases.

It does make sense to consider "Big Pharma" & over use of prescription drugs to solve all our problems.

And there is a conflict of Interest - COngressmen take money from both the gun industry and from Pharma. But Pharma is way more Wealthy Business - Lots more Money, Bigger Lobby.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Money seems to be more corrosive than acid.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

True Dat.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

These post's/threads are a distraction. There is no meaningful change that can be made by changing gun laws - the guns are out in the public - stopping the manufacture and sale of high ammunition capacity clips and semi-auto weapons will keep the numbers down ( in legal hands anyway ). But gun laws/rights will not stop mass murderers. Healing societies ills will reduce the number of murders - but will not do a thing to cure a mass murderers intents/reasoning/atrocities.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Good stuff. Colorado has an assault rifle ban and it was upheld by state Supreme Court. Never challenged in the Fed arena.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

O' Sage of Brighton, are you an American citizen? And if so, were you born here? If you're not, then you don't belong here at this site.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

My namesake branch of the family came to America in 1634 to the Massachusetts Bay Colony, served in the General Court multiple times, signed the order to form the firs militias, was the leading officer in the first 13 militias, fought in the first war against the indigenous people, sat on the War Council, one signed the declaration of independence by his town before the one signed for all of the colonies, fought in the war, one died a captive on a British frigate, later members fought in the Shays's Rebellion which finally motivated the addition of the Bill of Rights, Mother family line came to America a few years before the Revolution and, as Captain, survived Valley Forge and the war, numerous family members participated on the Union side of the Civil War, one a Medal of Honor winner, became the youngest Union General, appointed Governor of Mississippi later Senator, Fathers branch was in the Second Iowa Infantry, campaigning from St. Jo MO. through Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia in Sherman's march to the sea, up the Atlantic seaboard to Appomattox and the victory parade in Washington and mustered out in Des Moines. Father's mother's branch came after 7 years in Napoleon III's Army, joined the Union Army and also fought through the South and survived. The family were abolitionists declaring the same and moving to Kansas to keep it a free state. But you get the idea, and yes, I am an American citizen and have every right to interpret the history of this country as every other citizen does and I belong on this site just as much as you do. Do you feel that you have to qualify to be here?

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

More people are killed overseas with US Made Weapons probably. Of course accidents are the biggest gun death/injuery toll in the USA.

I don't really want to weigh in on this issue right now I guess. Seems like we could stop online ammo sales or limit quanitites sold on line through a cap. I don't want to drive up prices. Prices should stay the same in stores as they have to compete with Walmart and other stores.

They did stop sales of some Talon Bullets ...maybe they were horendous injuries when someone was shot with one. Don't think they were armor piercing bullets, but some may have thought they were.

I will say when politicians speak abou the subject - everyone becomes dumber as a result. They either don't know anything about guns & ammo ... or maybe are reading a script from an interest group.

Why don't Policians Talk about all the Exported US Arms since like 1912...surplus or new manufacture that went to Africa or wherever. The US is the Global Leader in Arms and Weapons FOR Economic and Financial reasons.

I'm sure many men in the US understand the spirit of the 2nd Amendment to mean that men should be allowed to own a semi-auto rifle to fight a tyranical government foreign or domestic.

But as you point out and as GirlFriday has pointed out the Lawyers have made it complicated.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Colorado has stopped assault rifle sales and it has been upheld and in the state and not challenged at the Fed level.

Paranoia is insanity and should be addressed as such. It should not be an institution that a sane country takes pride in.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

Always good points from you. If they stopped using fear in the propaganda, then the Public Relations industry would go to the next level down or up, I guess. Maybe if Politicians made a contract with America to stop using fear, we would have to give them a new name or stop calling them politicians. Maybe we would just call them Representives, Senators, or Congressmen.

Ah, but we have Interest Groups that use fear! They'll never give it up. Maybe we could pass a law similar to the denial of holocost is a crime. In Turkey if you call someone a Name or Attack them personally you just broke the law. Don't quote me on that. Not sure the exact wording...
Art. 482: “Whoever attacks a person’s honor, fame or dignity, in such a manner that three or more persons will hear such attacks, shall be punished by up to three months imprisonment and a heavy fine. If the act is committed in the presence of the injured party, even when he is alone, or by means of telegram, telephone, letter, picture or any kind of writing addressed directly to the injured party,” punishment shall be 15 days to four months imprisonment and a heavy fine. “If the act is committed publicly in addition to being in the presence of the injured party, punishment shall be imprisonment for one to six months and a heavy fine.” If the act is committed through writings, pictures or other means of publication, published or exhibited to the public, punishment is three months to one year imprisonment and a heavy fine.

Well ... on the other hand maybe that would make the USA look like McHales Navy tv series in New Calidonia.

I do know they sell guns in the Walmart 1-2 miles from Columbine High School. And they did a survey recently in Colorado that seemed to indicate the State is pro-gun and doesn't want additional gun laws. But we would have to pull up the survey to know what it really asked.

You are right. The buying of guns is like a fad or an emotional consumer trend ...based on some fear of loss of rights or something like that.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Seems like you are advocating civility. That was outlawed right after Reagan got the assualt rifle ban passed. Now there was a guy who knew how to control guns, raise taxes and lead a union.

And, he could play Democrat or Republican roles, sometime while working with a monkey. Can't beat that.

I am within 30 minutes of both Columbine and Aurora right now, and the current worry about guns is worse than the blowing snow between here and Limon. They were selling out of guns all over town today, Merry Christmas.

My mental health test? Here. Feel like you need a gun to go about your daily life? Result: You're unsuited to owning a gun and probably a spatula, as well.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

Hey, maybe this talk about gun bans is Obamas small stimus to the economy... Assault Weapon Stimulus? I guess we have had a 4 year gun-bubble since Barak Obama was elected in 2008. We might have layoffs and a further recession if all gun ban bills are defeated in Congress.

Well stay safe ... I guess they actually do have some gang problems. Hey I thought I saw that Clinton signed the Assault rifle ban in '94? Someone was saying in the forum that Reagan Killed more people that Bush. I have to look for that.... Oh you are saying Reagan is the biggest Flip Flopper.

El Salvador, right wing FMLN, armed with Reagan money,weapons, and military training slaughtered more than 80,000 civilians in the "War on Communism."

Just reading some about Operation Gladio - where NATO had secret armies in 14 countries ...and they committed State Terrrorism in Europe...over 400 killed I think in Italy.

Granada must have killed off some people.

The War on Drugs must have killed people in South America and Central America.

Central America is still reeling from poverty, drug gang activity, and the US covert actions, and we probably could have given aid of all kinds through Central America include free money for factories or whatever.

Reagan Bombed Libya Terrorism Targets ...60-100 people killed.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

More guns have been sold to protect folks egos from accepting Obama than ever before. So it is stimulative. There are gang problems, however cutting them out of the drug trade may require them to get jobs.

Reagan was enigmatic at best. Killing with one hand and passing Brady with the other. If Nancy could only have made up their mind....?

Now we only have secret armies in 571 foreign bases, see the lily pad strategy.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

I think we consolidated some bases in Germany and South Korea. Sort of looks like we reduced in those places, but not by much really.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

Excelent. Thinking this week perhaps the global presence was a deterant to Nuc War. Normally my position has been to go to skeletons overseas. Have our soldiers in the US, build bases here, and let them spend money in the US. But ...there is a guy saying analyst think the threat of a Nuc war has increased. Deterant-wise maybe a China or Russia can't nail all our strategic bombers and missiles spread out globally. But the article you posted makes the point that we can increase tensions very easily, People already see us as a military empire, and no doubt we will be taking things other people want very soon.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6474) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

How's the base?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

The base is creative.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6474) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Sunrise opened a few days ago.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Australia, May 1996, a lone gunman killed 35 people and wounded an additional 23. Subsequently, Australia passed a very strict gun control law that included a buy-back program that managed to recover 600,000 assault rifles and other arms -- 20 percent of all the known firearms in Australia. There were no more private sales of firearms, there were stringent registration laws, and, as with other nations, you had to prove to authorities that you had a specific reason for purchasing a firearm. And no, according to Slate, self-defense wasn't a valid excuse. What happened after that?

Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post's Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here's the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn't been a single one in Australia since. Hmmmmmm.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6474) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

just read the piece, thanks for link

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6474) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I think suicide is the number one cause of gun death, around 50,000 per year I think.

We are the war makers of the world, many of the guns we sell end up "protecting" the buyer from us, we drive the need for ever bigger armies by having the biggest one around.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

Good points. And if we sell them the old designs, it stimulates the design & purchase of the next generation of weapons, surveilence equipment, communications gear, radar, satelites, etc.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6474) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

It does, keeps General Dynamics in business. More and more people are talking about how stupid it is we have troops in Germany, what are they doing protecting the West from the East Germans, I think that bird has flown, either way are we the only country in the world to have bases on foreign soil? I think maybe NATO bases make sense, but a single country with bases all over the world? No wonder everybody wants a bunch of guns of their own, oh yeah I guess that does make sense if we want to be building anything guns seems to be it.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

Yes, have you heard that we don't have enough barracks, Training facilities, maintenence facilities for troops over in Germany if they shipped back to the US. There was a troop reduction going through in like 2005. But anyway they didn't cut as many as they first planned. The same think happened to a cut for South Korea in 2003.

But I was going to say, we have a lot of officer slots that depend on getting commands. The better commands are overseas since they are more like combat or deployments or theaters of operations. This is a real sticking point. The military kind of has to invent commands... and officers tend to request the better slots. if the slots shrink... you probably get stressed officers. Hot shots.

Personally I think the Japan, Korea, and Germany bases are like Empires. And I was just reading this Gladio paper ...there is or was a secret NATO army empire that included the CIA. Great slots for Officers and Special Forces types. Anyway, we spend a lot of money employing foreign employees, leasing facilities, paying for training employees, all empires ...

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6474) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

They created positions at the nuc plant I worked at for similar reasons, things aren't that different I guess. Maybe building state side barracks could create some jobs.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

yeah, that was in my economic stimulus plan early in this year. It is on my solutions in my profile.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 2 years ago

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were round ed up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

I can go on and on... we're not surrendering our guns.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

And that is the sad truth, you would hold your breath until you turned blue first. You would wreck your brothers Lego tower first. You would do something pretty disgusting first, but give up your big boy toys? How many innocents would have to die? there is no limit is there? There is no limit. And now the NRA is going to suggest psychological testing. How is that going to work out?

If you had to get the annual per capita gun deaths and injuries below that of even the average of the industrialized countries in order to keep those toys, how would you do it. Don't tell me what the answer isn't.

Tell me what the answer is. I'm listening.....

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 2 years ago

You're accusing me of an awful lot of things I have never done and would never do, aren't you?

And what's your excuse, an ex-felon by any chance?

My answer would be to end all of our nation's concealed carry bans; further, I would declassify the semi-auto handgun because in its typical configuration it's not an "assault weapon," it's a self defense weapon.

My views on this go all the way back to Colin Ferguson; if but one capable person had been on that train lives would have been spared. And they were also heavily influenced by the Goetz shooting - NY issues no carry permits because it does not believe that the lives of its citizens are of any value whatsoever; instead they empower the animals that prey on the defenseless.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

You chose to lump yourself together with: "we're not surrendering our guns."

I accuse you of not being willing to give up your guns for any REASON, because that is what YOU said.

The rest was questions, a challenge, if you will, given that you reject giving them up no matter what happens, no matter how many innocents are killed, maimed or wounded. So, that leaves the ball in your court. Show that the killing of 18,000 people per year in the US can be ..... No not stopped, I want to be reasonable, reduced to at least the levels of the average of the industrialized world. Not down to 39 per year like Japan, with a third of our population. Just the average. And do it in a reasonable time and you can keep your toys.

"Assault" and "weapon" really seem inseparable don't they? What is a handgun for but assault? If a slap in the face is an assault, what is a bullet hole? Do you really believe that if every man, woman and child were carrying one or more guns, all of the time, that there would be less gun violence?

Might it not have been better in the old west where their hawgleg was belted on and tied down so everybody knew who was about to shatter the peace and who to shoot before they shot you? Concealed carry makes me as much a target as any person with a gun. I would rather the guys with guns were shooting at each other or not at all.

You seem to have a lot of stats handy, with about 300,000,000 guns in circulation, how many mass murders have been stopped by citizens? I have been in the middle of a shootout in a mall and nobody stopped it.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 2 years ago

I am not giving up my guns for any reason; that is correct. Furthermore, I will organize the entire shooting world in my support.

I agree, "assault weapon" and "weapon" are not only synonymous; they are actually the very same word. Where I disagree is that I do not believe that semi-auto handguns are assault weapons; they have only been labeled as such because of the criminal behavior of those who assault people.

For those opposed to acts of wanton violence, and opposed to merely passive resistance, they are defense weapons.

I support open carry; I also support concealed carry. Furthermore, I am invoking a good samaritan clause - you have a responsibility, if at all possible, to aid in defense.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Guns are not and will never be passive resistance. The are weapons who used as designed are for the purpose of killing human beings.

Passive resistance are things like door locks. Criminal behavior begins with intimidation, the threat of death if, in my judgement, your are about to do something that threatens my well being (which in many states now I don't even have to prove to get away with killing another person).

Planning to be a good samaritan doesn't absolve you of the responsibiltiy of the consequence of the decisions to own a gun, to store the gun in various places to, carry it (them) in the presence of men women and children, to make them aware of it, and to put them at risk by pulling the trigger, or dropping it, motivating another gun owner to fire their weapon and actually pulling the trigger.

I am less confident in your judgement and other gun owners than I am in mine. Attending a movie with half or more strangers carrying weapons or the alternative of attending a movie with people without guns is, for me an easy choice. I have enough trouble trusting the judgement of strangers as I walk the aisles of the parking lot with them hunting for the last parking stall. They may beat someone to it over my dead body. Get is a dark theatger and have someone yell, "Gun" or "Shooter" and I will surely be shot by some good samaritan. Your reassurance falls short and I believe that burden is still on you. A Netflix bonanza.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 2 years ago

If you live in a gun-banned location you are doing that any way; there are illegal guns in every public location.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

So we need more legal one to keep them company? Are the guns in your basement legal until the kid down the block decides to take them and shoot up a mall and then they are illegal? I get confused about the pedigree of all of these guns. If they could only talk, what stories they could tell.....?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Do you think we might be gearing up to exterminate people? Which groups are biggest gun owners? Is that the group we are gonna exterminate.?

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 2 years ago

I don't believe that, no.

But if push ever comes to shove, I firmly believe, that African Americans and our Jewish population will be the first to go. As absurd as it sounds, legal gun ownership actually extends "people protection" to even those who would prefer to shoot at us.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Is it 12% African American population? Smaller Jewish population. And they do not represent a big percent of gun owners.

What are we waitin' for? If we're gonna exterminate them we could do that now without worrying about armed resistance.

Unless your suggesting that the group who IS the largest gun owners are gonna come to the jewish, & African Americans. Is that what you are suggesting?

Who is the group that makes up the largest gun owners?

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 2 years ago

Statistics have long suggested that African Americans represent 12 or 13% of the population; I believe these figures disregard those who self identify as Latino. In light of the fact that many African Americans have literally dozens of children - I had one quote of "56" and have heard many in the 30s - I find it impossible to believe that these numbers have held constant for the past two or three decades.

Caucasians are still a majority population - Obama could not have won election without the white vote - and I believe they will be a majority for many years to come. And they are not going to permit this government to exterminate anyone, nor will we ever permit ourselves to be exterminated.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So the largest group of gun owners are caucasians?

I saw something that stated there are more gun owners in the Southern red states.

So maybe your saying that Southern whites are gonna protect African Americans & Jewish Americans?


LMFAO That is too funny.


[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well if our Caucasian gun owners are not gonna protect black & jewish Americans how would their being armed prevent the extermination you suggested when you listed Turkey, Hitler, & Russias gun control.

Why do you think the Caucasians would not protect their fellow black & Jewish Americans?

Do you think the 300 million guns are any match for the drones, attack helicopters, tanks, and bombs that is at the disposal of the US govt?

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 2 years ago

Yea I do.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You are a delusional fool then.

We once had a whole group of states who thought they were a match for the US military.

But we beat their weak, sorry, ignorant, slave holdin', secessionist, asses like an old salvation army drum!!!

Aaaaaaaaaah Ha Haha ha.

Good luck to you in all your good efforts.


[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Nobody is asking you to.

[-] 2 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 2 years ago

OK, so how 'bout an outline?

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

What kind of outline do you need? Ban on assault weapons. The Tiahrt Amendments,

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 2 years ago

Tiahrt is difficult to even fathom; incredible impediment to law enforcement.

I don't approve of the current classification of semi-auto handguns as "assault weapons"; they are self defense weapons and concealed carry should be granted nationwide to all law abiding and mentally stable individuals.

Nah... I was talking about your '8'.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Neither one of them are difficult. In fact, you should be running to change that Tiahrt amendment so that you can spend lots of time defending legit gun owners.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 2 years ago

OR... we could use it to track the illegal flow of guns into NY, which makes a whole lotta sense to me. Because they're coming from somewhere and every year hundreds die because of them. And it's this very reason - people die - that has caused the ban of semi-autos in NYC. Which is just ridiculous.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Or you could stop the ones from hitting the street via the back door of manufacturers................illegally.

[-] 2 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 2 years ago

Sure... where ever they originate.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago


And sugar as a cure for diabetes!!

3rd degree burns? An hour in a tanning booth will have you good as new.

High cholesterol? Bacon! Lots of bacon!

I pray that someday you understand the absurdity of your belief.

War is peace.....eh?

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 2 years ago

I hate criminals; I hate people who victimize others. I'm not big on corrupt politicians either. Or corrupt philosophies.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Then you should do things to create a country that is more balanced economically.

It's the disparity that creates all those criminals. It ALWAYS does.

So it sounds like you need a new "philosophy", the one you are using is the most corrupt of all.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6474) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Sorry about the "cross-promote" but you made me want to write something today, thought you'd like to hear that anyway.


[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6474) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I like this one, thanks for posting Mr. Sage, very well written short to the point and on point and best of all true.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Aw pshaw. You're just making my head a bigger target.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6474) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

It's kinda an important part of our history and so often people feel like they got to tell us what everybody had for breakfast and the underlining events can get muddled up. This is one of the shortest yet most complete answers I've seen to the whole 2nd amendment argument.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Then try this one. The US has 5% of the world's population, 50% of the world's guns in private hands and 5% of the brains, not counting Republicans or 2.5% of the brains, counting all of the Republicans.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6474) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Happy end of the world, it's a brand new world now.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

But it isn't your world, it's Mayan.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Perhaps they would have been willing to share the new age.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I think it is interesting that their civilization collapsed and the people are still here.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6474) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

we lost ice in the arctic on the shortest day of the year, maybe the earth is trying to tell us something


[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

We can seem to hear anything but ourselves, screaming at each other.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Hello the 2nd Amendment is the 2nd amendment. You know, like in 1-2, you know, counting. That's how important the framers considered it.

The entire Bill of Rights is about restrictions on government power and the rights of the individual. Any other reading is a tortured lie.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Hello! The framers didn't put them in until well after the Constitution was written, ratified by them (there still wasn't a Congress), and were circulating it among the colonies. They were finding strong resistance and finally relented and drafted 12 amendments. Ten of these were passed, added to the package for ratification and after some time were finally ratified by the 13 colonies, becoming states. Why do you think they didn't just write them in as Articles rather that having to add them as amendments. History, a good thing.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

very interesting point. can you cite the SCOTUS decision that defined this concept about the militia. Do you see a change in this if scalia is replaced?
Is it really a key issue - the old assault weapons ban allowed banning of SOME guns - so can't we ban what the people want to ban - as long as it is not ALL?

what if we charge $1000 for a gun license & $1000 for each gun registration.
Fewer people will want to own fewer guns.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Here it is from Wiki: In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]

I think if Scalia, Thomas or Alito were to be replaced, the others might look hard for an excuse to revisit to try to recover their legacy.

Lastly, I believe that some case can be made about technology that was unknown to the founders. The cap, the cartridge and the semiautomatic mechanism were not invented until much later. The cap first, the cartridge and the semiautomatic feature in 1893. I would try to regulate on those technologies. Fully automatic guns are regulated, so....

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

great answers - thanx