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.

Actor Danny Glover told students at Texas A&M University the intent of
the Second Amendment was to protect slavery.

“I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,” he
said. “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,” he continued.

Glover, best known for roles in the “Lethal Weapon” franchise and
“Angels in the Outfield,” was addressing students at an event being held
in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Director of Texas A&M’s Memorial Student Center, Luke Altendorf, told
Campus Reform on Friday that the university was unaware of Glover’
talking points prior to his speech.

“I had no idea, we really didn’t know that topic was coming up,” he told
Campus Reform. “Someone was asking a question about activism, I think
that’s where some of that came from.”

Altendorf declined to say if, or how much the school had paid for
Glover’s speech, but said student fees were not used.

On 1/19/2013 10:21 AM, 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.

Actor Danny Glover told students at Texas A&M University the intent of
the Second Amendment was to protect slavery.

“I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,” he
said. “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,” he continued.

Glover, best known for roles in the “Lethal Weapon” franchise and
“Angels in the Outfield,” was addressing students at an event being held
in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Director of Texas A&M’s Memorial Student Center, Luke Altendorf, told
Campus Reform on Friday that the university was unaware of Glover’
talking points prior to his speech.

“I had no idea, we really didn’t know that topic was coming up,” he told
Campus Reform. “Someone was asking a question about activism, I think
that’s where some of that came from.”

Altendorf declined to say if, or how much the school had paid for
Glover’s speech, but said student fees were not used.


Most actors live in La La Land. It's the price they pay for playing make
believe for a living. O_o

TDD

On 1/19/2013 10:21 AM, 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.

Actor Danny Glover told students at Texas A&M University the intent of
the Second Amendment was to protect slavery.

“I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,” he
said. “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,” he continued.

Glover, best known for roles in the “Lethal Weapon” franchise and
“Angels in the Outfield,” was addressing students at an event being held
in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Director of Texas A&M’s Memorial Student Center, Luke Altendorf, told
Campus Reform on Friday that the university was unaware of Glover’
talking points prior to his speech.

“I had no idea, we really didn’t know that topic was coming up,” he told
Campus Reform. “Someone was asking a question about activism, I think
that’s where some of that came from.”

Altendorf declined to say if, or how much the school had paid for
Glover’s speech, but said student fees were not used.


Back when the Republicans wanted *more* gun control:

http://tinyurl.com/7z637fq

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:53:13 -0600, gonjah wrote:

On 1/19/2013 10:21 AM, 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.

Actor Danny Glover told students at Texas A&M University the intent of
the Second Amendment was to protect slavery.

“I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,” he
said. “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,” he continued.

Glover, best known for roles in the “Lethal Weapon” franchise and
“Angels in the Outfield,” was addressing students at an event being held
in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Director of Texas A&M’s Memorial Student Center, Luke Altendorf, told
Campus Reform on Friday that the university was unaware of Glover’
talking points prior to his speech.

“I had no idea, we really didn’t know that topic was coming up,” he told
Campus Reform. “Someone was asking a question about activism, I think
that’s where some of that came from.”

Altendorf declined to say if, or how much the school had paid for
Glover’s speech, but said student fees were not used.

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

Back when the Republicans wanted *more* gun control:

http://tinyurl.com/7z637fq


Lying really does become you.

On 1/19/2013 12:34 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:53:13 -0600, gonjah wrote:

On 1/19/2013 10:21 AM, 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.

Actor Danny Glover told students at Texas A&M University the intent of
the Second Amendment was to protect slavery.

“I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,” he
said. “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,” he continued.

Glover, best known for roles in the “Lethal Weapon” franchise and
“Angels in the Outfield,” was addressing students at an event being held
in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Director of Texas A&M’s Memorial Student Center, Luke Altendorf, told
Campus Reform on Friday that the university was unaware of Glover’
talking points prior to his speech.

“I had no idea, we really didn’t know that topic was coming up,” he told
Campus Reform. “Someone was asking a question about activism, I think
that’s where some of that came from.”

Altendorf declined to say if, or how much the school had paid for
Glover’s speech, but said student fees were not used.

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

Back when the Republicans wanted *more* gun control:

http://tinyurl.com/7z637fq


Lying really does become you.


heh Big-man behind keyboard syndrome?

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

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...

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?

wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:53:13 -0600, gonjah wrote:

On 1/19/2013 10:21 AM, 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.

Actor Danny Glover told students at Texas A&M University the intent of
the Second Amendment was to protect slavery.

“I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,” he
said. “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,” he continued.

Glover, best known for roles in the “Lethal Weapon” franchise and
“Angels in the Outfield,” was addressing students at an event being held
in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Director of Texas A&M’s Memorial Student Center, Luke Altendorf, told
Campus Reform on Friday that the university was unaware of Glover’
talking points prior to his speech.

“I had no idea, we really didn’t know that topic was coming up,” he told
Campus Reform. “Someone was asking a question about activism, I think
that’s where some of that came from.”

Altendorf declined to say if, or how much the school had paid for
Glover’s speech, but said student fees were not used.

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

Back when the Republicans wanted *more* gun control:

http://tinyurl.com/7z637fq


Lying really does become you.

Hi,
Please kindly define "Lying" and "Lefty" ?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

On Jan 20, 12:44*am, 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.

That about sums it up. Anyone with more than two connected
brain cells doesn't take statements from an anti-American
loon like Glover without finding out what the founders actually said.

As for Glover, he only finds fault with the USA. What dictators
like his buddy Chavez does in Venezuela, like shutting down
media that disagrees with him, why that's not only OK, it's so
cool that he goes down there and supports him.






"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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ashton Crusher wrote:

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.

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.

I think you mean 1779.

But yes, the white male citizens of the United States, who are peaceable
- yet also own slaves and at war with indians and who would invade
Canada (and get their ass kicked) in 1812.

How do you rationalize or explain that?

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

As long as you were a white male.

This is not an argument that early colonial american politicians wanted
themselves and and other white males to own guns (as part of a
well-regulated militia by the way).

This is a conversation about some of their motives and reasons as to why
they wanted to have guns - to what use they might put them to.

And some of those uses was to put down slave uprisings and to commit war
upon native indians - both of which are logical and plausible given the
events of the time. That those reasons seem distasteful to you now
doesn't make them any less real or true back then.

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?

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.

"Ernie" wrote in message ...
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.

Sure you can.
That is if one expects Glover to actually be able to think
Otherwise, he should know better

By the way, the very premise that the 2nd Amendment was to maintain slavery
goes against the VERY WELL DOCUMENTED historical fact that gun-control laws,
were for more than a century all about keeping free blacks from arming
tehmselves againsts the Democrats and the KKK..

Funny how your and Glover's claim go against the facts.



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.


So ?
Just because the government FAILS to do so, does not in ANY way restrict the
part that says
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Notice that there is NO requirement for the people to be members of a
militia to exercise their RKBA.


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.

TOo bad for you, that clearly your reading skills are not very advanced
The US Suprement Court, has CONSISTENTLY over 200+ years of history
supported the fact that
1) The RKBA belongs to individuals
2) There is not requirement for membership in a militia to exercise the
RKBA.


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?

Who the **** is Alex Jones ?
Why should we care about him ?
Our right does not depend in ANY way on Alex Jones.

See how that works, dummy ?

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.

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.

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)?

On Jan 20, 12:06*pm, 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.

Show us where the founders ever said that. Link please.




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


Show us where the founders ever said there was a reqt
that to have the right to bear arms, you have to participate in a
militia. Link please.




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.

No it's not. Because the same folks who wrote the constitiution
also did exactly that just years before. They overthrew a tyranical
govt.

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 18:24:25 -0700, Tony Hwang
wrote:



wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:53:13 -0600, gonjah wrote:

On 1/19/2013 10:21 AM, 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.

Actor Danny Glover told students at Texas A&M University the intent of
the Second Amendment was to protect slavery.

“I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,” he
said. “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,” he continued.

Glover, best known for roles in the “Lethal Weapon” franchise and
“Angels in the Outfield,” was addressing students at an event being held
in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Director of Texas A&M’s Memorial Student Center, Luke Altendorf, told
Campus Reform on Friday that the university was unaware of Glover’
talking points prior to his speech.

“I had no idea, we really didn’t know that topic was coming up,” he told
Campus Reform. “Someone was asking a question about activism, I think
that’s where some of that came from.”

Altendorf declined to say if, or how much the school had paid for
Glover’s speech, but said student fees were not used.

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

Back when the Republicans wanted *more* gun control:

http://tinyurl.com/7z637fq


Lying really does become you.

Hi,
Please kindly define "Lying" and "Lefty" ?

If you're that stupid, I can't help. Lefties really are beyond
education.

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 14:18:23 -0600, gonjah wrote:

On 1/19/2013 12:34 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:53:13 -0600, gonjah wrote:

On 1/19/2013 10:21 AM, 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.

Actor Danny Glover told students at Texas A&M University the intent of
the Second Amendment was to protect slavery.

“I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,” he
said. “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,” he continued.

Glover, best known for roles in the “Lethal Weapon” franchise and
“Angels in the Outfield,” was addressing students at an event being held
in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Director of Texas A&M’s Memorial Student Center, Luke Altendorf, told
Campus Reform on Friday that the university was unaware of Glover’
talking points prior to his speech.

“I had no idea, we really didn’t know that topic was coming up,” he told
Campus Reform. “Someone was asking a question about activism, I think
that’s where some of that came from.”

Altendorf declined to say if, or how much the school had paid for
Glover’s speech, but said student fees were not used.

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

Back when the Republicans wanted *more* gun control:

http://tinyurl.com/7z637fq


Lying really does become you.


heh Big-man behind keyboard syndrome?

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

Keep lying. It really *is* you!

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 reading comprehension is severely lacking. The independent
clause is *not* modified by the dependant clause. To put it in the
terms of logic, A = B B = A.

Now, go back to fifth grade (if you ever got that far).

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.

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.

Take offense? Why not? I find him very offensive. Reject? You bet.
He's a moron. Deny? I always deny lies. I can see why you think
he's a hero, though. You two think alike; in lies.

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.

Idiot.

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.

Idiot.

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...

More idiocy. No surprise.

" 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?

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.

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.

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.

No it is *NOT*. So there! Idiot, read some history, some time

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?

You haven't even read the Constitution, have you?

Why wouldn't they make treason legal?

Read some history, if you can (read).

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

Idiot.

In Ernie
wrote:

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.

History and the US Supreme Court disagree with you.

As do the newsgroups to which you've posted your drivel.

[Followups set]

--
St. Paul, MN

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?

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.

On Jan 20, 1:13*pm, 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.

I'll start to believe your professor's claim that the real purpose
of the 2nd amendment was to regulate guns just as soon as you
show us that Congress then passed those gun regulations
in the early years of the republic. If it was indeed the aim to
regulate guns, then show us the laws that were passed in
those early years.....





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.

What a crock. Like there was only one gunsmith in Philly
or all of Boston? And even if there was, he would know and
keep track of every gun out there? Good grief.... There was
a huge supply of guns out there, after all the war had just
ended. You think those patriots all threw their guns in the river?
Or came home to present them to the local gunsmith for
him to record in a book?





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."

No ****. But when a govt gets so tyranical and oppressive, the
founding fathers obviously believed you had a right to revolution.
They did exactly that themselves.




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."

So many strawmen there. Why don't you try the same
thing with say the first 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.


The SC hasn't heard a case in so long? And this guy is a professor?
Heller v DC was in 2008. And they ruled that the DC ban to "curb gun
violence"
was an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd amendment to boot.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:54:58 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

That was the norm for the time. The media is so far left that they
*have* to protect their own. It happened with Clinton, too, except
the press has some competition, now. The MSM was forced to "cover"
Clinton's mess.


I suppose one could surmise that the Liberal press is the best conduit
for Democrats to use for manipulating the useful idiots who make up
their political base. ^_^

TDD

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

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.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:16:35 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:54:58 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

That was the norm for the time. The media is so far left that they
*have* to protect their own. It happened with Clinton, too, except
the press has some competition, now. The MSM was forced to "cover"
Clinton's mess.


I suppose one could surmise that the Liberal press is the best conduit
for Democrats to use for manipulating the useful idiots who make up
their political base. ^_^

If they were "useful" they'd have hobs.

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

Isn't that a kick! AlBore wouldn't sell the network to Glenn Beck
because he didn't agree with GB, but *DID* sell it to the Middle
Eastern oil sheiks, presumably because he does. Let's see, AlBore,
oil sheiks, and Global Warming. Yeah, that makes sense...

LOL

On 1/20/2013 6:03 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:16:35 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:54:58 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

That was the norm for the time. The media is so far left that they
*have* to protect their own. It happened with Clinton, too, except
the press has some competition, now. The MSM was forced to "cover"
Clinton's mess.


I suppose one could surmise that the Liberal press is the best conduit
for Democrats to use for manipulating the useful idiots who make up
their political base. ^_^

If they were "useful" they'd have hobs.


I know a gal who has big hobs. ^_^

TDD

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:08:48 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 1/20/2013 6:03 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:16:35 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:54:58 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

That was the norm for the time. The media is so far left that they
*have* to protect their own. It happened with Clinton, too, except
the press has some competition, now. The MSM was forced to "cover"
Clinton's mess.


I suppose one could surmise that the Liberal press is the best conduit
for Democrats to use for manipulating the useful idiots who make up
their political base. ^_^

If they were "useful" they'd have hobs.


I know a gal who has big hobs. ^_^

Oh crap! ROTFLOL!

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 19:03:55 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:16:35 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:54:58 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

That was the norm for the time. The media is so far left that they
*have* to protect their own. It happened with Clinton, too, except
the press has some competition, now. The MSM was forced to "cover"
Clinton's mess.


I suppose one could surmise that the Liberal press is the best conduit
for Democrats to use for manipulating the useful idiots who make up
their political base. ^_^

If they were "useful" they'd have hobs.

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

Isn't that a kick! AlBore wouldn't sell the network to Glenn Beck
because he didn't agree with GB, but *DID* sell it to the Middle
Eastern oil sheiks, presumably because he does. Let's see, AlBore,
oil sheiks, and Global Warming. Yeah, that makes sense...

LOL

He was a few danglin' chads from being President. Get the picture...

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

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. Boy, you aren't too bright
either.