On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:35:34 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:17:33 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:59:10 -0600, Doug
wrote:

In general I think it's crazy and going to get crazier, to rely on a
constitution, etc... that was written like 200+ years ago and try to
make it apply for things or situations never envisioned or available
at the time.

Yeah, that nasty old Constitution keeps getting in your way. Just
ignore it. Of course you're unable to think about that for even a
minute.

Do you really think the authors could account for all future events?

I think so.

You cretins that want to remove the Constitution forget that it is
what holds this Republic together; the "glue" - remove it and we have
anarchy.

Um, future events? That is funny, right there.

Of course the founders anticipated future events. We have three
branches of government. CNN legal desk can tell you that or maybe the
CDC.

AND yes, they knew what real tyranny was.


Ridiculous

Indeed you are. Look it up at CDC.GOV!

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:37:46 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 19:00:04 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:59:10 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:04:06 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 08:10:10 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 22:44:46 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:33:23 -0500, Ernie wrote:

Ken wrote:

The Constitution's Second Amendment was created to bolster slavery
and capture land from Native Americans...

“The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves
from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans.”

“A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt
from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis
of the second amendment is,”

The problem is much deeper than just Danny Glover.

KR Williams ) wrote:

Why state the obvious? Glover is a lefty. Always has been.

I don't know why anyone would take offense or try to disprove, reject or
deny what Danny Glover said.

Anyone with more than two brain cells should be able to understand what
it was like living in the late 1700's colonial north-america, complete
with native indians prowling the nearby woods and expensive african
slaves working your fields.

It's a no brainer that foremost on the minds of the "founding fathers"
is the security of their property (which included slaves) and the
conquering / genocide of tribal indians as the western expansion of the
colonies rolled along.

You don't have to apologize or explain-away the need for a "right to
have and bear arms" when seen in that context - unless you feel
embarrassed by that inconvienent truth...

Why don't you spend some time reading what the founders wrote instead
of just imagining things in your head.

"The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress
to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens
from keeping their own arms." - Sam Adams, as reported in the
Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1879.

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everybody who is able
may have a gun." - Patrick Henry

"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage
of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost
every other nation." - James Madison

"When firearms go, all goes....we need them every hour." - George
Washington

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a
few public officials." - George Mason

"Laws that forbid the carrying of guns...disarm only those who are
neither inclined not determined to commit crimes....Such laws make
things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailant; they
serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed
man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - from
Thomas Jefferson's books

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They
are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under
independence...From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day,
events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace,
security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally
indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains
evil interference, they deserve a place of honor with all that's
good." - George Washington

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual
discretion...in private defense." - James Madison

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may
attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be
occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power
to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by
the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -
Tench Coxe, June 18,1789

"The true importance of the Second Amendment will not be fully
understood, until they begin to usurp its power." - Thomas Jefferson

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they
are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America
can not enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of
the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of
regular troops." - Noah Webster, 1787

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest
reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is
as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"But there are some persons who would...persuade the people never to
make use of their constitutional rights." - Samuel Adams

From an earlier historic perspective we find; "Both Oligarch and
Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." -
Aristotle


Based on the concerns then and what was available, I understand why
the 2nd amendment was written as such but now people use it as a
blanket statement to give them the right to bear whatever. I mean we
have so many more types of weapons available that I don't think the
authors meant. Personally I think the 2nd amendment should be
amended but in reality, it will never happen.

You don't think? Well, you're right there. If you think the second
amendment is passe, CHANGE IT! what a moron

In general I think it's crazy and going to get crazier, to rely on a
constitution, etc... that was written like 200+ years ago and try to
make it apply for things or situations never envisioned or available
at the time.

Yeah, that nasty old Constitution keeps getting in your way. Just
ignore it. Of course you're unable to think about that for even a
minute.

Do you really think the authors could account for all future events?

Of course not, idiot. That's why they designed in a way to AMEND THE
CONSTITUTION. Boy, you aren't too bright.


Sure, just keep amending it for ever.

That *was* the idea, moron.

Boy, you aren't too bright either.

You really do impress people with your utter ignorance. Amazing.
Simply amazing!

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:01:52 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:35:34 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:17:33 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:59:10 -0600, Doug
wrote:

In general I think it's crazy and going to get crazier, to rely on a
constitution, etc... that was written like 200+ years ago and try to
make it apply for things or situations never envisioned or available
at the time.

Yeah, that nasty old Constitution keeps getting in your way. Just
ignore it. Of course you're unable to think about that for even a
minute.

Do you really think the authors could account for all future events?

I think so.

You cretins that want to remove the Constitution forget that it is
what holds this Republic together; the "glue" - remove it and we have
anarchy.

Um, future events? That is funny, right there.

Of course the founders anticipated future events. We have three
branches of government. CNN legal desk can tell you that or maybe the
CDC.

AND yes, they knew what real tyranny was.


Ridiculous

Indeed you are. Look it up at CDC.GOV!

Why don't you, moron.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:03:09 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:37:46 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 19:00:04 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:59:10 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:04:06 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 08:10:10 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 22:44:46 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:33:23 -0500, Ernie wrote:

Ken wrote:

The Constitution's Second Amendment was created to bolster slavery
and capture land from Native Americans...

“The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves
from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans.”

“A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt
from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis
of the second amendment is,”

The problem is much deeper than just Danny Glover.

KR Williams ) wrote:

Why state the obvious? Glover is a lefty. Always has been.

I don't know why anyone would take offense or try to disprove, reject or
deny what Danny Glover said.

Anyone with more than two brain cells should be able to understand what
it was like living in the late 1700's colonial north-america, complete
with native indians prowling the nearby woods and expensive african
slaves working your fields.

It's a no brainer that foremost on the minds of the "founding fathers"
is the security of their property (which included slaves) and the
conquering / genocide of tribal indians as the western expansion of the
colonies rolled along.

You don't have to apologize or explain-away the need for a "right to
have and bear arms" when seen in that context - unless you feel
embarrassed by that inconvienent truth...

Why don't you spend some time reading what the founders wrote instead
of just imagining things in your head.

"The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress
to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens
from keeping their own arms." - Sam Adams, as reported in the
Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1879.

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everybody who is able
may have a gun." - Patrick Henry

"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage
of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost
every other nation." - James Madison

"When firearms go, all goes....we need them every hour." - George
Washington

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a
few public officials." - George Mason

"Laws that forbid the carrying of guns...disarm only those who are
neither inclined not determined to commit crimes....Such laws make
things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailant; they
serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed
man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - from
Thomas Jefferson's books

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They
are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under
independence...From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day,
events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace,
security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally
indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains
evil interference, they deserve a place of honor with all that's
good." - George Washington

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual
discretion...in private defense." - James Madison

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may
attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be
occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power
to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by
the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -
Tench Coxe, June 18,1789

"The true importance of the Second Amendment will not be fully
understood, until they begin to usurp its power." - Thomas Jefferson

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they
are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America
can not enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of
the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of
regular troops." - Noah Webster, 1787

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest
reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is
as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"But there are some persons who would...persuade the people never to
make use of their constitutional rights." - Samuel Adams

From an earlier historic perspective we find; "Both Oligarch and
Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." -
Aristotle


Based on the concerns then and what was available, I understand why
the 2nd amendment was written as such but now people use it as a
blanket statement to give them the right to bear whatever. I mean we
have so many more types of weapons available that I don't think the
authors meant. Personally I think the 2nd amendment should be
amended but in reality, it will never happen.

You don't think? Well, you're right there. If you think the second
amendment is passe, CHANGE IT! what a moron

In general I think it's crazy and going to get crazier, to rely on a
constitution, etc... that was written like 200+ years ago and try to
make it apply for things or situations never envisioned or available
at the time.

Yeah, that nasty old Constitution keeps getting in your way. Just
ignore it. Of course you're unable to think about that for even a
minute.

Do you really think the authors could account for all future events?

Of course not, idiot. That's why they designed in a way to AMEND THE
CONSTITUTION. Boy, you aren't too bright.


Sure, just keep amending it for ever.

That *was* the idea, moron.

Boy, you aren't too bright either.

You really do impress people with your utter ignorance. Amazing.
Simply amazing!


It's hard to argue with such a stupid person so I won't. I'll let
your own words show what I mean.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:04:22 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:01:52 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:35:34 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:17:33 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:59:10 -0600, Doug
wrote:

In general I think it's crazy and going to get crazier, to rely on a
constitution, etc... that was written like 200+ years ago and try to
make it apply for things or situations never envisioned or available
at the time.

Yeah, that nasty old Constitution keeps getting in your way. Just
ignore it. Of course you're unable to think about that for even a
minute.

Do you really think the authors could account for all future events?

I think so.

You cretins that want to remove the Constitution forget that it is
what holds this Republic together; the "glue" - remove it and we have
anarchy.

Um, future events? That is funny, right there.

Of course the founders anticipated future events. We have three
branches of government. CNN legal desk can tell you that or maybe the
CDC.

AND yes, they knew what real tyranny was.


Ridiculous

Indeed you are. Look it up at CDC.GOV!

Why don't you, moron.

Why don't you study a little history from somewhere other than
CDC.GOV, Douggie? Learn *something*, idiot.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:20:52 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:03:09 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:37:46 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 19:00:04 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:59:10 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:04:06 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 08:10:10 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 22:44:46 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:33:23 -0500, Ernie wrote:

Ken wrote:

The Constitution's Second Amendment was created to bolster slavery
and capture land from Native Americans...

“The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves
from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans.”

“A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt
from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis
of the second amendment is,”

The problem is much deeper than just Danny Glover.

KR Williams ) wrote:

Why state the obvious? Glover is a lefty. Always has been.

I don't know why anyone would take offense or try to disprove, reject or
deny what Danny Glover said.

Anyone with more than two brain cells should be able to understand what
it was like living in the late 1700's colonial north-america, complete
with native indians prowling the nearby woods and expensive african
slaves working your fields.

It's a no brainer that foremost on the minds of the "founding fathers"
is the security of their property (which included slaves) and the
conquering / genocide of tribal indians as the western expansion of the
colonies rolled along.

You don't have to apologize or explain-away the need for a "right to
have and bear arms" when seen in that context - unless you feel
embarrassed by that inconvienent truth...

Why don't you spend some time reading what the founders wrote instead
of just imagining things in your head.

"The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress
to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens
from keeping their own arms." - Sam Adams, as reported in the
Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1879.

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everybody who is able
may have a gun." - Patrick Henry

"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage
of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost
every other nation." - James Madison

"When firearms go, all goes....we need them every hour." - George
Washington

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a
few public officials." - George Mason

"Laws that forbid the carrying of guns...disarm only those who are
neither inclined not determined to commit crimes....Such laws make
things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailant; they
serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed
man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - from
Thomas Jefferson's books

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They
are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under
independence...From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day,
events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace,
security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally
indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains
evil interference, they deserve a place of honor with all that's
good." - George Washington

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual
discretion...in private defense." - James Madison

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may
attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be
occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power
to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by
the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -
Tench Coxe, June 18,1789

"The true importance of the Second Amendment will not be fully
understood, until they begin to usurp its power." - Thomas Jefferson

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they
are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America
can not enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of
the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of
regular troops." - Noah Webster, 1787

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest
reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is
as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"But there are some persons who would...persuade the people never to
make use of their constitutional rights." - Samuel Adams

From an earlier historic perspective we find; "Both Oligarch and
Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." -
Aristotle


Based on the concerns then and what was available, I understand why
the 2nd amendment was written as such but now people use it as a
blanket statement to give them the right to bear whatever. I mean we
have so many more types of weapons available that I don't think the
authors meant. Personally I think the 2nd amendment should be
amended but in reality, it will never happen.

You don't think? Well, you're right there. If you think the second
amendment is passe, CHANGE IT! what a moron

In general I think it's crazy and going to get crazier, to rely on a
constitution, etc... that was written like 200+ years ago and try to
make it apply for things or situations never envisioned or available
at the time.

Yeah, that nasty old Constitution keeps getting in your way. Just
ignore it. Of course you're unable to think about that for even a
minute.

Do you really think the authors could account for all future events?

Of course not, idiot. That's why they designed in a way to AMEND THE
CONSTITUTION. Boy, you aren't too bright.


Sure, just keep amending it for ever.

That *was* the idea, moron.

Boy, you aren't too bright either.

You really do impress people with your utter ignorance. Amazing.
Simply amazing!


It's hard to argue with such a stupid person so I won't.

Then why do you always babble to yourself, Douggie?

I'll let your own words show what I mean.

LOL? Do you even read what *you* write, moron?

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:28:58 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:20:52 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:03:09 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:37:46 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 19:00:04 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:59:10 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:04:06 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 08:10:10 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 22:44:46 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:33:23 -0500, Ernie wrote:

Ken wrote:

The Constitution's Second Amendment was created to bolster slavery
and capture land from Native Americans...

“The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves
from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans.”

“A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt
from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis
of the second amendment is,”

The problem is much deeper than just Danny Glover.

KR Williams ) wrote:

Why state the obvious? Glover is a lefty. Always has been.

I don't know why anyone would take offense or try to disprove, reject or
deny what Danny Glover said.

Anyone with more than two brain cells should be able to understand what
it was like living in the late 1700's colonial north-america, complete
with native indians prowling the nearby woods and expensive african
slaves working your fields.

It's a no brainer that foremost on the minds of the "founding fathers"
is the security of their property (which included slaves) and the
conquering / genocide of tribal indians as the western expansion of the
colonies rolled along.

You don't have to apologize or explain-away the need for a "right to
have and bear arms" when seen in that context - unless you feel
embarrassed by that inconvienent truth...

Why don't you spend some time reading what the founders wrote instead
of just imagining things in your head.

"The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress
to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens
from keeping their own arms." - Sam Adams, as reported in the
Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1879.

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everybody who is able
may have a gun." - Patrick Henry

"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage
of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost
every other nation." - James Madison

"When firearms go, all goes....we need them every hour." - George
Washington

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a
few public officials." - George Mason

"Laws that forbid the carrying of guns...disarm only those who are
neither inclined not determined to commit crimes....Such laws make
things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailant; they
serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed
man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - from
Thomas Jefferson's books

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They
are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under
independence...From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day,
events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace,
security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally
indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains
evil interference, they deserve a place of honor with all that's
good." - George Washington

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual
discretion...in private defense." - James Madison

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may
attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be
occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power
to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by
the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -
Tench Coxe, June 18,1789

"The true importance of the Second Amendment will not be fully
understood, until they begin to usurp its power." - Thomas Jefferson

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they
are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America
can not enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of
the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of
regular troops." - Noah Webster, 1787

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest
reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is
as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"But there are some persons who would...persuade the people never to
make use of their constitutional rights." - Samuel Adams

From an earlier historic perspective we find; "Both Oligarch and
Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." -
Aristotle


Based on the concerns then and what was available, I understand why
the 2nd amendment was written as such but now people use it as a
blanket statement to give them the right to bear whatever. I mean we
have so many more types of weapons available that I don't think the
authors meant. Personally I think the 2nd amendment should be
amended but in reality, it will never happen.

You don't think? Well, you're right there. If you think the second
amendment is passe, CHANGE IT! what a moron

In general I think it's crazy and going to get crazier, to rely on a
constitution, etc... that was written like 200+ years ago and try to
make it apply for things or situations never envisioned or available
at the time.

Yeah, that nasty old Constitution keeps getting in your way. Just
ignore it. Of course you're unable to think about that for even a
minute.

Do you really think the authors could account for all future events?

Of course not, idiot. That's why they designed in a way to AMEND THE
CONSTITUTION. Boy, you aren't too bright.


Sure, just keep amending it for ever.

That *was* the idea, moron.

Boy, you aren't too bright either.

You really do impress people with your utter ignorance. Amazing.
Simply amazing!


It's hard to argue with such a stupid person so I won't.

Then why do you always babble to yourself, Douggie?

I'll let your own words show what I mean.

LOL? Do you even read what *you* write, moron?


Thanks smile

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:40:03 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:28:58 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:20:52 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:03:09 -0500, wrote:

...



It's hard to argue with such a stupid person so I won't.

Then why do you always babble to yourself, Douggie?

I'll let your own words show what I mean.

LOL? Do you even read what *you* write, moron?


Thanks smile

Idiots always have ****-eating grin on their face.

In Oren
wrote:

Staff at Current TV quit their jobs. Eleven viewers were lost. Oil
company's own it now.

Well, no.

What passes for the government of Qatar owns it now.

--
St. Paul, MN

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:35:34 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:17:33 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:59:10 -0600, Doug
wrote:

In general I think it's crazy and going to get crazier, to rely on a
constitution, etc... that was written like 200+ years ago and try to
make it apply for things or situations never envisioned or available
at the time.

Yeah, that nasty old Constitution keeps getting in your way. Just
ignore it. Of course you're unable to think about that for even a
minute.

Do you really think the authors could account for all future events?

I think so.

You cretins that want to remove the Constitution forget that it is
what holds this Republic together; the "glue" - remove it and we have
anarchy.

Um, future events? That is funny, right there.

Of course the founders anticipated future events. We have three
branches of government. CNN legal desk can tell you that or maybe the
CDC.

AND yes, they knew what real tyranny was.


Ridiculous

That's all you've got Doug? Nothing to debate with, I see.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 06:12:38 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Jan 20, 12:40 am, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 20:01:13 -0500, Ernie wrote:
wrote:

This bull**** came from Thom Hartmann with very little citation of
fact

I don't think you can fault Glover for not citing Hartmann. Glover did
not take any claim for the idea that an important, underlying
foundation
for the 2'nd amendment was linked to the maintenance of slaves and
slavery, or to the idea that "domestic enemies" was a code-word for
native indians.

Emphasis on the 2nd amendment ignores the first half of the one
sentence
- "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." Switzerland in a way is arming a well regulated militia.
The USA does not.

It seems the intent of the 2nd amendment was not just to put arms in
the
hands of the people but to put the people with those arms in a well
regulated militia. My read of the complete sentence tells me that
ownership of weapons, especially military type, requires membership in
a
well regulated militia - a state militia. Do you think Alex Jones would
be accepted as a member of a state run militia? Do you think that Alex
Jones (given his philosophy) would want or seek to join a state-run
militia?

Your interpretation makes no sense. Nowhere does the second require
"the people" to be members of anything.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nor have multiple Supreme Courts over decades agreed with Ernie's
interpretation.
It's been made abundantly clear by the SC that the right to bear arms
extends to all the people. The "militia" at the time was any and
every able
bodied man, available if necessary.

Right. The "milita" *WAS* the people.

According to US Code, it sill is.

"Ernie" wrote in message
...
Saul Cornell: The Constitution's gun-control pledge

SOURCE: Editorial in the Minneapolis Star Tribune (9-23-06)

First, a calming caveat: Saul Cornell doesn't want to take away your
guns. He's neither antigun nor progun. He really isn't a gun guy at all.
His thing is history.

Cornell, a professor at Ohio State University, passed through town the
other day with much to say about regulating guns. Yet his aim isn't to
take sides in the modern gun-control debate -- a squabble he thinks has
strayed rather off-topic. It's far more interesting, he thinks, to look
back to learn what this country's founders actually thought about gun
regulation.

They couldn't imagine life without it, says Cornell. That's the point of
his new book, "A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the
Origins of Gun Control in America." In it, Cornell excavates the
foundations of the Second Amendment and offers some startling
conclusions.

"As long as we've had guns in America," says Cornell, "we've had gun
regulation." In fact, the Second Amendment's chief purpose is to assure
such regulation. Without it, the founders feared, anarchy might take
hold.


TOTAL CROCK OF REVISIONIST ****
The long and bloody history of gun-control is one of racism and
discrimination against minorities sanctionnned by governmetn
That was NEVER the intent of the 2nd Amendment
Quite the opposite actually.
It was intended to insure that the people would NOT be defenseless against
government abuse

"Ernie" wrote in message
...
Bob F wrote:

Emphasis on the 2nd amendment ignores the first half of the one
sentence - "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." Switzerland in a way is
arming a well regulated militia. The USA does not.

I understand that when the NRA moved their headquarters to it's present
location in Virginia, they removed the first part of the 2'nd amendment
clause - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of
a free State" from the front entrance or lobby of their building.

The 2'nd amendment is both an obligation and a right. An obligation to
be ready to perform in a militia. A well-regulated militia. A militia
that has a muster roll.


NOPE !
Not even close

But hey, you have every right to be stupid and ignorant
But why do you need to prove it to the world ?



Most people, including the NRA, would rather not acknowledge the part
about the obligation to participate in a well-regulated militia.


Since the premise is wrong, so is your conclusion


The intent of the founders as I understand it was that they feared
a "standing army" because of the history of armies taking over
countries. Thus, they wanted to have the people prepared to defend
the country without having a continuous army. Thus, this amendment.
This was made clear in the letters of the people writing our
constitution.

The idea that the right to bear arms was given so that the people could
overthrow a tyranical gov't (a gov't that didn't have it's own standing
army) is hogwash when that same constitution also has a clause defining
treason.

We're so sorry that your education did NOT include some good history lessons
But realize that it's NOT too late to change your shortcoming.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 11:46:23 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:40:03 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:28:58 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:20:52 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:03:09 -0500, wrote:

...



It's hard to argue with such a stupid person so I won't.

Then why do you always babble to yourself, Douggie?

I'll let your own words show what I mean.

LOL? Do you even read what *you* write, moron?


Thanks smile

Idiots always have ****-eating grin on their face.

Thanks smile

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:16:55 +0000 (UTC), Bert
wrote:

In Oren
wrote:

Staff at Current TV quit their jobs. Eleven viewers were lost. Oil
company's own it now.

Well, no.

What passes for the government of Qatar owns it now.

No doubt. Arab Oil Sheikh = Oil company

In Oren
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:16:55 +0000 (UTC), Bert
wrote:

In Oren
wrote:

Staff at Current TV quit their jobs. Eleven viewers were lost. Oil
company's own it now.

Well, no.

What passes for the government of Qatar owns it now.

No doubt. Arab Oil Sheikh = Oil company

While the foreign oil companies operate in the region, their only
connection to the various tribal states is that they pay tremendous
bribes to the ruling families for the privilege.

--
St. Paul, MN

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:22:02 -0600, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 06:12:38 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Jan 20, 12:40 am, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 20:01:13 -0500, Ernie wrote:
wrote:

This bull**** came from Thom Hartmann with very little citation of
fact

I don't think you can fault Glover for not citing Hartmann. Glover did
not take any claim for the idea that an important, underlying
foundation
for the 2'nd amendment was linked to the maintenance of slaves and
slavery, or to the idea that "domestic enemies" was a code-word for
native indians.

Emphasis on the 2nd amendment ignores the first half of the one
sentence
- "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." Switzerland in a way is arming a well regulated militia.
The USA does not.

It seems the intent of the 2nd amendment was not just to put arms in
the
hands of the people but to put the people with those arms in a well
regulated militia. My read of the complete sentence tells me that
ownership of weapons, especially military type, requires membership in
a
well regulated militia - a state militia. Do you think Alex Jones would
be accepted as a member of a state run militia? Do you think that Alex
Jones (given his philosophy) would want or seek to join a state-run
militia?

Your interpretation makes no sense. Nowhere does the second require
"the people" to be members of anything.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nor have multiple Supreme Courts over decades agreed with Ernie's
interpretation.
It's been made abundantly clear by the SC that the right to bear arms
extends to all the people. The "militia" at the time was any and
every able
bodied man, available if necessary.

Right. The "milita" *WAS* the people.

According to US Code, it sill is.

Yes, I was specifically talking about the usage of the word by those
who wrote the Constitution.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:58:38 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:35:34 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:17:33 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:59:10 -0600, Doug
wrote:

In general I think it's crazy and going to get crazier, to rely on a
constitution, etc... that was written like 200+ years ago and try to
make it apply for things or situations never envisioned or available
at the time.

Yeah, that nasty old Constitution keeps getting in your way. Just
ignore it. Of course you're unable to think about that for even a
minute.

Do you really think the authors could account for all future events?

I think so.

You cretins that want to remove the Constitution forget that it is
what holds this Republic together; the "glue" - remove it and we have
anarchy.

Um, future events? That is funny, right there.

Of course the founders anticipated future events. We have three
branches of government. CNN legal desk can tell you that or maybe the
CDC.

AND yes, they knew what real tyranny was.


Ridiculous

That's all you've got Doug? Nothing to debate with, I see.

Debating requires a brain. Of course he has nothing to debate with.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:16:46 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 11:46:23 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:40:03 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:28:58 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:20:52 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:03:09 -0500, wrote:

...



It's hard to argue with such a stupid person so I won't.

Then why do you always babble to yourself, Douggie?

I'll let your own words show what I mean.

LOL? Do you even read what *you* write, moron?


Thanks smile

Idiots always have ****-eating grin on their face.

Thanks smile

Once again we agree; you're an idiot with a permanent ****-eating
grin.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:34:29 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:16:46 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 11:46:23 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:40:03 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:28:58 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:20:52 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:03:09 -0500, wrote:

...



It's hard to argue with such a stupid person so I won't.

Then why do you always babble to yourself, Douggie?

I'll let your own words show what I mean.

LOL? Do you even read what *you* write, moron?


Thanks smile

Idiots always have ****-eating grin on their face.

Thanks smile

Once again we agree; you're an idiot with a permanent ****-eating
grin.

Thanks again... smile

Charleton Heston wrote:
http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4582

The Constitution's Second Amendment was created to bolster slavery and
capture land from Native Americans, award winning actor Danny Glover
told a group of students at a Texas A&M sponsored event on Thursday.


[...]

Glover is not a constitutional scholar, although he did play a cop in the
movies.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:33:37 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:58:38 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:35:34 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:17:33 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:59:10 -0600, Doug
wrote:

In general I think it's crazy and going to get crazier, to rely on a
constitution, etc... that was written like 200+ years ago and try to
make it apply for things or situations never envisioned or available
at the time.

Yeah, that nasty old Constitution keeps getting in your way. Just
ignore it. Of course you're unable to think about that for even a
minute.

Do you really think the authors could account for all future events?

I think so.

You cretins that want to remove the Constitution forget that it is
what holds this Republic together; the "glue" - remove it and we have
anarchy.

Um, future events? That is funny, right there.

Of course the founders anticipated future events. We have three
branches of government. CNN legal desk can tell you that or maybe the
CDC.

AND yes, they knew what real tyranny was.


Ridiculous

That's all you've got Doug? Nothing to debate with, I see.

Debating requires a brain. Of course he has nothing to debate with.

His desire to repeal the 2nd, will no longer protect his rights to the
1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments.

Guns protect the 16th (?) so his wife can vote.

According to Doug folks should just shred the Constitution, stop
wearing flag lapel pins and only listen to them - superior thinkers,
those knowing better than you.

How dare you not to submit to the foolishness.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:57:49 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Glover is not a constitutional scholar, although he did play a cop in the
movies.

Born, raised and educated in San Francisco - ( parents were postal
workers)

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:59:58 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:33:37 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:58:38 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:35:34 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:17:33 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:59:10 -0600, Doug
wrote:

In general I think it's crazy and going to get crazier, to rely on a
constitution, etc... that was written like 200+ years ago and try to
make it apply for things or situations never envisioned or available
at the time.

Yeah, that nasty old Constitution keeps getting in your way. Just
ignore it. Of course you're unable to think about that for even a
minute.

Do you really think the authors could account for all future events?

I think so.

You cretins that want to remove the Constitution forget that it is
what holds this Republic together; the "glue" - remove it and we have
anarchy.

Um, future events? That is funny, right there.

Of course the founders anticipated future events. We have three
branches of government. CNN legal desk can tell you that or maybe the
CDC.

AND yes, they knew what real tyranny was.


Ridiculous

That's all you've got Doug? Nothing to debate with, I see.

Debating requires a brain. Of course he has nothing to debate with.

His desire to repeal the 2nd, will no longer protect his rights to the
1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments.

I thought that was rather obvious but you're right. I'm sure he
didn't consider that aspect of his desire to dump the Constitution.

Guns protect the 16th (?) so his wife can vote.

Wife? A third grader has a wife?

According to Doug folks should just shred the Constitution, stop
wearing flag lapel pins and only listen to them - superior thinkers,
those knowing better than you.

The moron thinks he's part of the ruling class, so exempt from their
rules.

How dare you not to submit to the foolishness.

Sorry, but that's the way I am. Douggie can be a sheep or a leftie's
bottom.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:50:06 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:34:29 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:16:46 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 11:46:23 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:40:03 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:28:58 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:20:52 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:03:09 -0500, wrote:

...



It's hard to argue with such a stupid person so I won't.

Then why do you always babble to yourself, Douggie?

I'll let your own words show what I mean.

LOL? Do you even read what *you* write, moron?


Thanks smile

Idiots always have ****-eating grin on their face.

Thanks smile

Once again we agree; you're an idiot with a permanent ****-eating
grin.

Thanks again... smile

Douggie, you don't have to prove you're a bloomin' idiot with every
post. We *all* know, now, that you're an idiot with a permanent
****-eating smile.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 23:29:50 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:50:06 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:34:29 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:16:46 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 11:46:23 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:40:03 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:28:58 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:20:52 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:03:09 -0500, wrote:

...



It's hard to argue with such a stupid person so I won't.

Then why do you always babble to yourself, Douggie?

I'll let your own words show what I mean.

LOL? Do you even read what *you* write, moron?


Thanks smile

Idiots always have ****-eating grin on their face.

Thanks smile

Once again we agree; you're an idiot with a permanent ****-eating
grin.

Thanks again... smile

Douggie, you don't have to prove you're a bloomin' idiot with every
post. We *all* know, now, that you're an idiot with a permanent
****-eating smile.


Keep it up smile

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 06:07:43 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 23:29:50 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:50:06 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:34:29 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:16:46 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 11:46:23 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:40:03 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:28:58 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:20:52 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:03:09 -0500, wrote:

...



It's hard to argue with such a stupid person so I won't.

Then why do you always babble to yourself, Douggie?

I'll let your own words show what I mean.

LOL? Do you even read what *you* write, moron?


Thanks smile

Idiots always have ****-eating grin on their face.

Thanks smile

Once again we agree; you're an idiot with a permanent ****-eating
grin.

Thanks again... smile

Douggie, you don't have to prove you're a bloomin' idiot with every
post. We *all* know, now, that you're an idiot with a permanent
****-eating smile.


Keep it up smile


Since you asked so nicely...

Douggie, you don't have to prove you're a bloomin' idiot with every
post. We *all* know, now, that you're an idiot with a permanent
****-eating smile.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:13:05 -0500, Ernie wrote:

Saul Cornell: The Constitution's gun-control pledge

SOURCE: Editorial in the Minneapolis Star Tribune (9-23-06)

First, a calming caveat: Saul Cornell doesn't want to take away your
guns. He's neither antigun nor progun. He really isn't a gun guy at all.
His thing is history.

Cornell, a professor at Ohio State University, passed through town the
other day with much to say about regulating guns. Yet his aim isn't to
take sides in the modern gun-control debate -- a squabble he thinks has
strayed rather off-topic. It's far more interesting, he thinks, to look
back to learn what this country's founders actually thought about gun
regulation.

They couldn't imagine life without it, says Cornell. That's the point of
his new book, "A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the
Origins of Gun Control in America." In it, Cornell excavates the
foundations of the Second Amendment and offers some startling
conclusions.

"As long as we've had guns in America," says Cornell, "we've had gun
regulation." In fact, the Second Amendment's chief purpose is to assure
such regulation. Without it, the founders feared, anarchy might take
hold.

The amendment was born of the founders' desire for "a well-regulated
militia." Having opted against a standing army, the Constitution's
cobblers determined that every able-bodied man would serve as a member
of a local militia -- prepared to respond in unison against invasion.

"It would have been impossible to muster the militia without a scheme of
regulation," says Cornell -- and the early Americans had one. "Muster
rolls" kept track of militia members and their firearms. And every
hamlet in the land had its own de facto gun registrar: the local
gunsmith, who knew every gun and gun-owner in town.

There's one right the Second Amendment wasn't written to confer: an
entitlement to take up arms against the government. "The founding
fathers drew a distinction between a well-regulated militia, which
operates under the authority of the state, and an armed mob," says
Cornell. History couldn't be clearer about this point: "Once you have
constitutional government," Cornell points out, "you have no right of
revolution anymore."

Indeed, "All these things that the gun-rights community has championed
in the name of the founding fathers -- opposition to registration,
promotion of concealed-carry and stand-your-ground laws, the notion that
individuals have a right to take up arms against their government -- are
antithetical to the original understanding of the Second Amendment."

They also contradict today's legal understanding of the amendment. "The
reason the high court hasn't heard a case regarding the meaning of the
Second Amendment in so long," says Cornell, "is that it's considered one
of the most settled issues in American law." In other words, laws meant
to curb gun violence are usually ruled constitutional.


It's called an editorial because it's not based on facts, just one
man's apparently erroneous opinion. "well-regulated" means "armed
with good quality weapons". There were discussions at the time the
second was written that included suggestions that in order to ensure
each man was "well-regulated" they should actually spell out a
requirement for a GOOD weapon plus make having such mandatory. In the
end they did not make ownership of a weapon mandatory (as the Swiss
did) but did say the militia (which was the UNorganized militia
composed of all able bodied men) should be well-regulated, i.e. armed
with good quality weapons.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 12:06:11 -0500, Ernie wrote:

Bob F wrote:

Emphasis on the 2nd amendment ignores the first half of the one
sentence - "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." Switzerland in a way is
arming a well regulated militia. The USA does not.

I understand that when the NRA moved their headquarters to it's present
location in Virginia, they removed the first part of the 2'nd amendment
clause - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of
a free State" from the front entrance or lobby of their building.

The 2'nd amendment is both an obligation and a right. An obligation to
be ready to perform in a militia. A well-regulated militia. A militia
that has a muster roll.


Utter BS as has been explained to you. Go read source background
material, don't just listen to the crap the revisionists spew.


Most people, including the NRA, would rather not acknowledge the part
about the obligation to participate in a well-regulated militia.

The intent of the founders as I understand it was that they feared
a "standing army" because of the history of armies taking over
countries. Thus, they wanted to have the people prepared to defend
the country without having a continuous army. Thus, this amendment.
This was made clear in the letters of the people writing our
constitution.

The idea that the right to bear arms was given so that the people could
overthrow a tyranical gov't (a gov't that didn't have it's own standing
army) is hogwash when that same constitution also has a clause defining
treason.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:03:31 -0500, Ernie wrote:

" wrote:

The idea that the right to bear arms was given so that the people
could overthrow a tyranical gov't (a gov't that didn't have it's
own standing army) is hogwash when that same constitution also has
a clause defining treason.

No it's not.

Yes it is.

Because the same folks who wrote the constitiution also did exactly
that just years before. They overthrew a tyranical govt.

Then why would those noble, libertarian people write it into their new
constitution that it is "illegal" to commit treason against their new
gov't?

Why wouldn't they make treason legal?

Or at least strike any mention of treason out of their new constitution?


The pertinent part of the constitution says.."Treason against the
United States, shall consist only in levying War against them,.."

As we know from the writings of the Founders, they were very concerned
about gvt going "bad" and went so far as to suggest a bloody
revolution might be needed periodically. In terms of wars (or
football) there is always offense versus defense. The point of the
Treason mention was for OFFENSE against "the United States", that is,
when for no freedom related reason someone would attack the US,
perhaps they just didn't like democracy and wanted to institute a
dictatorship that could rule by executive orders. When it came to
DEFENSE, such as when the gvt was blatantly ignoring the constitution
and engaging in warrantless searches and otherwise attacking the
PEOPLE, then it would not be treason to attack that gvt, it would be
DEFENDING yourself against the gvt and would be completely in keeping
with the history of our countries formation and such a DEFENSE would
be the patriotic thing to do.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 12:12:03 -0500, Ernie wrote:

Bob F wrote:

The intent of the founders as I understand it was that they feared
a "standing army" because of the history of armies taking over
countries.

Then why wasn't it written into the constitution that the *federal*
gov't was NOT to have or form a standing army (at least during
peace-time)?


I suggest you read this. It answers that as well as other questions.

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/fieldsandhardy2.html

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 08:10:10 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 22:44:46 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:33:23 -0500, Ernie wrote:

Ken wrote:

The Constitution's Second Amendment was created to bolster slavery
and capture land from Native Americans...

“The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves
from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans.”

“A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt
from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis
of the second amendment is,”

The problem is much deeper than just Danny Glover.

KR Williams ) wrote:

Why state the obvious? Glover is a lefty. Always has been.

I don't know why anyone would take offense or try to disprove, reject or
deny what Danny Glover said.

Anyone with more than two brain cells should be able to understand what
it was like living in the late 1700's colonial north-america, complete
with native indians prowling the nearby woods and expensive african
slaves working your fields.

It's a no brainer that foremost on the minds of the "founding fathers"
is the security of their property (which included slaves) and the
conquering / genocide of tribal indians as the western expansion of the
colonies rolled along.

You don't have to apologize or explain-away the need for a "right to
have and bear arms" when seen in that context - unless you feel
embarrassed by that inconvienent truth...

Why don't you spend some time reading what the founders wrote instead
of just imagining things in your head.

"The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress
to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens
from keeping their own arms." - Sam Adams, as reported in the
Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1879.

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everybody who is able
may have a gun." - Patrick Henry

"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage
of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost
every other nation." - James Madison

"When firearms go, all goes....we need them every hour." - George
Washington

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a
few public officials." - George Mason

"Laws that forbid the carrying of guns...disarm only those who are
neither inclined not determined to commit crimes....Such laws make
things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailant; they
serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed
man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - from
Thomas Jefferson's books

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They
are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under
independence...From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day,
events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace,
security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally
indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains
evil interference, they deserve a place of honor with all that's
good." - George Washington

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual
discretion...in private defense." - James Madison

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may
attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be
occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power
to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by
the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -
Tench Coxe, June 18,1789

"The true importance of the Second Amendment will not be fully
understood, until they begin to usurp its power." - Thomas Jefferson

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they
are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America
can not enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of
the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of
regular troops." - Noah Webster, 1787

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest
reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is
as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"But there are some persons who would...persuade the people never to
make use of their constitutional rights." - Samuel Adams

From an earlier historic perspective we find; "Both Oligarch and
Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." -
Aristotle


Based on the concerns then and what was available, I understand why
the 2nd amendment was written as such but now people use it as a
blanket statement to give them the right to bear whatever. I mean we
have so many more types of weapons available that I don't think the
authors meant. Personally I think the 2nd amendment should be
amended but in reality, it will never happen.


How do you see people asking for the right to bear [whatever]? All I
see are people asking for the right to bear SEMI-automatic pistols and
rifles and to NOT be limited to a ridiculously small clip size. I see
no one on the pro-gun size lobbying for an expansion of the current
view that doesn't allow people to own grenade throwers, etc.

In general I think it's crazy and going to get crazier, to rely on a
constitution, etc... that was written like 200+ years ago and try to
make it apply for things or situations never envisioned or available
at the time.

I have yet to find any question where the Freedoms provided by a
strict interpretation of the constitution are "too much" freedom.
Please enlighten me, where do you find us having "too much freedom"
because the constitution is outdated?

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:59:10 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:04:06 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 08:10:10 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 22:44:46 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:33:23 -0500, Ernie wrote:

Ken wrote:

The Constitution's Second Amendment was created to bolster slavery
and capture land from Native Americans...

“The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves
from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans.”

“A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt
from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis
of the second amendment is,”

The problem is much deeper than just Danny Glover.

KR Williams ) wrote:

Why state the obvious? Glover is a lefty. Always has been.

I don't know why anyone would take offense or try to disprove, reject or
deny what Danny Glover said.

Anyone with more than two brain cells should be able to understand what
it was like living in the late 1700's colonial north-america, complete
with native indians prowling the nearby woods and expensive african
slaves working your fields.

It's a no brainer that foremost on the minds of the "founding fathers"
is the security of their property (which included slaves) and the
conquering / genocide of tribal indians as the western expansion of the
colonies rolled along.

You don't have to apologize or explain-away the need for a "right to
have and bear arms" when seen in that context - unless you feel
embarrassed by that inconvienent truth...

Why don't you spend some time reading what the founders wrote instead
of just imagining things in your head.

"The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress
to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens
from keeping their own arms." - Sam Adams, as reported in the
Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1879.

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everybody who is able
may have a gun." - Patrick Henry

"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage
of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost
every other nation." - James Madison

"When firearms go, all goes....we need them every hour." - George
Washington

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a
few public officials." - George Mason

"Laws that forbid the carrying of guns...disarm only those who are
neither inclined not determined to commit crimes....Such laws make
things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailant; they
serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed
man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - from
Thomas Jefferson's books

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They
are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under
independence...From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day,
events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace,
security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally
indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains
evil interference, they deserve a place of honor with all that's
good." - George Washington

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual
discretion...in private defense." - James Madison

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may
attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be
occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power
to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by
the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -
Tench Coxe, June 18,1789

"The true importance of the Second Amendment will not be fully
understood, until they begin to usurp its power." - Thomas Jefferson

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they
are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America
can not enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of
the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of
regular troops." - Noah Webster, 1787

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest
reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is
as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"But there are some persons who would...persuade the people never to
make use of their constitutional rights." - Samuel Adams

From an earlier historic perspective we find; "Both Oligarch and
Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." -
Aristotle


Based on the concerns then and what was available, I understand why
the 2nd amendment was written as such but now people use it as a
blanket statement to give them the right to bear whatever. I mean we
have so many more types of weapons available that I don't think the
authors meant. Personally I think the 2nd amendment should be
amended but in reality, it will never happen.

You don't think? Well, you're right there. If you think the second
amendment is passe, CHANGE IT! what a moron

In general I think it's crazy and going to get crazier, to rely on a
constitution, etc... that was written like 200+ years ago and try to
make it apply for things or situations never envisioned or available
at the time.

Yeah, that nasty old Constitution keeps getting in your way. Just
ignore it. Of course you're unable to think about that for even a
minute.

Do you really think the authors could account for all future events?


Do you really think the "nature of man" has changed in the past 200
years?

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 23:28:24 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:59:58 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:33:37 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:58:38 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:35:34 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:17:33 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:59:10 -0600, Doug
wrote:

In general I think it's crazy and going to get crazier, to rely on a
constitution, etc... that was written like 200+ years ago and try to
make it apply for things or situations never envisioned or available
at the time.

Yeah, that nasty old Constitution keeps getting in your way. Just
ignore it. Of course you're unable to think about that for even a
minute.

Do you really think the authors could account for all future events?

I think so.

You cretins that want to remove the Constitution forget that it is
what holds this Republic together; the "glue" - remove it and we have
anarchy.

Um, future events? That is funny, right there.

Of course the founders anticipated future events. We have three
branches of government. CNN legal desk can tell you that or maybe the
CDC.

AND yes, they knew what real tyranny was.


Ridiculous

That's all you've got Doug? Nothing to debate with, I see.

Debating requires a brain. Of course he has nothing to debate with.

His desire to repeal the 2nd, will no longer protect his rights to the
1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments.

I thought that was rather obvious but you're right. I'm sure he
didn't consider that aspect of his desire to dump the Constitution.


Some folks never think things out first or consider the consequences
of jumping in with both feet.

Guns protect the 16th (?) so his wife can vote.

Wife? A third grader has a wife?


I just threw that in there. Maybe, without the 2nd he won't have the
13th....

According to Doug folks should just shred the Constitution, stop
wearing flag lapel pins and only listen to them - superior thinkers,
those knowing better than you.

The moron thinks he's part of the ruling class, so exempt from their
rules.


Judge Dredd: I am the law!

How dare you not to submit to the foolishness.

Sorry, but that's the way I am. Douggie can be a sheep or a leftie's
bottom.

I knew you would understand.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 11:56:43 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 06:07:43 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 23:29:50 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:50:06 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:34:29 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:16:46 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 11:46:23 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:40:03 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:28:58 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:20:52 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:03:09 -0500, wrote:

...



It's hard to argue with such a stupid person so I won't.

Then why do you always babble to yourself, Douggie?

I'll let your own words show what I mean.

LOL? Do you even read what *you* write, moron?


Thanks smile

Idiots always have ****-eating grin on their face.

Thanks smile

Once again we agree; you're an idiot with a permanent ****-eating
grin.

Thanks again... smile

Douggie, you don't have to prove you're a bloomin' idiot with every
post. We *all* know, now, that you're an idiot with a permanent
****-eating smile.


Keep it up smile


Since you asked so nicely...

Douggie, you don't have to prove you're a bloomin' idiot with every
post. We *all* know, now, that you're an idiot with a permanent
****-eating smile.

Sure smile

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:02:40 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

Yeah, that nasty old Constitution keeps getting in your way. Just
ignore it. Of course you're unable to think about that for even a
minute.

Do you really think the authors could account for all future events?


Do you really think the "nature of man" has changed in the past 200
years?

No. Not one single bit. Men are savages. Have been for ages, now.

Just imagine a treasured document that brings a nation together..

Ernie wrote:
Saul Cornell: The Constitution's gun-control pledge

SOURCE: Editorial in the Minneapolis Star Tribune (9-23-06)

First, a calming caveat: Saul Cornell doesn't want to take away your
guns. He's neither antigun nor progun. He really isn't a gun guy at
all. His thing is history.

Cornell, a professor at Ohio State University, passed through town the
other day with much to say about regulating guns. Yet his aim isn't to
take sides in the modern gun-control debate -- a squabble he thinks
has strayed rather off-topic. It's far more interesting, he thinks,
to look back to learn what this country's founders actually thought
about gun regulation.

They couldn't imagine life without it, says Cornell. That's the point
of his new book, "A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and
the Origins of Gun Control in America." In it, Cornell excavates the
foundations of the Second Amendment and offers some startling
conclusions.

"As long as we've had guns in America," says Cornell, "we've had gun
regulation." In fact, the Second Amendment's chief purpose is to
assure such regulation. Without it, the founders feared, anarchy
might take hold.

The amendment was born of the founders' desire for "a well-regulated
militia." Having opted against a standing army, the Constitution's
cobblers determined that every able-bodied man would serve as a member
of a local militia -- prepared to respond in unison against invasion.

"It would have been impossible to muster the militia without a scheme
of regulation," says Cornell -- and the early Americans had one.
"Muster rolls" kept track of militia members and their firearms. And
every hamlet in the land had its own de facto gun registrar: the local
gunsmith, who knew every gun and gun-owner in town.

There's one right the Second Amendment wasn't written to confer: an
entitlement to take up arms against the government. "The founding
fathers drew a distinction between a well-regulated militia, which
operates under the authority of the state, and an armed mob," says
Cornell. History couldn't be clearer about this point: "Once you have
constitutional government," Cornell points out, "you have no right of
revolution anymore."

Indeed, "All these things that the gun-rights community has championed
in the name of the founding fathers -- opposition to registration,
promotion of concealed-carry and stand-your-ground laws, the notion
that individuals have a right to take up arms against their
government -- are antithetical to the original understanding of the
Second Amendment."

They also contradict today's legal understanding of the amendment.
"The reason the high court hasn't heard a case regarding the meaning
of the Second Amendment in so long," says Cornell, "is that it's
considered one of the most settled issues in American law." In other
words, laws meant to curb gun violence are usually ruled
constitutional.

Bring it on.

We already had one case of fraudulent scholarship:

"In 2000, a remarkable piece of academic work was published by the then much
respected Emory University historian, professor Michael Bellesiles. In his
book, "Arming America," he used hundreds of old documents to prove that gun
ownership was uncommon in the 18th century. He went on to say that given the
rarity of gun ownership, there is no way the Founding Fathers intended the
Second Amendment to ensure individual gun ownership rights. It was a moment
of triumph in the gun control debate, when data, not polemic, proved the
point.

"Except it was not true. In an epic academic takedown a year later, a law
professor from Northwestern University, James Lindgren, went through
hundreds of pages of Bellesiles`s footnotes and found that much of the data
were falsified. In fact, there were far more guns in earlier America than
Bellesiles claimed. And Professor Bellesiles resigned from his tenured job,
and was stripped of his book awards.

"But most damning of all, the research he`d hoped would make a case for gun
control only served to bolster the claims of the NRA."

http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/22/msn...ns-in-america/