JoyV

Good plan.

coelacanth Loc: Michigan swamp

Of course! It's common sense.

coelacanth Loc: Michigan swamp

Ban doctors. Their mistakes kill over 200,000 patients per year. They say they're "practicing" medicine. When will they get it down?

Abel

IMHO: Banning cars could make sense; it would cut down on traffic, the need for super-highways, and dependence on foreign fuel. How about banning Big Pharma and Big Medical? They kill people. But that won't happen, people all want cars, and actually most need at least one in this day and age because they all elect to work on one side of town and reside on the other (of course their cars have to have every distraction known to man built into them to aid in killing people); people are told about four times per hour on TV and Radio that they may be sick and need some miracle medicine or the advise of a doctor, and they now believe they need these things in order to survive when of course they don't.

Maybe we should just ban "Marketing Experts" who make people want things they don't need (those things you used once or twice that are stored in your garage, closet or attic) and be done with it -- clean house, get rid of career politicians and lawyers, reduce the size of the government immensely, and go back to actually thinking for ourselves and living a nice, quiet and peaceful life in our Limited Capitalistic Constitutional Republic of the USA; maybe even speaking to neighbors and helping them once in a while even when it isn't during some natural disaster. I can remember when it was like this, and it wasn't all that bad!

I could play without supervision as long as I got home before dark and we didn't bother to lock the house or car (good lord, now that I think of it, how did I manage to survive without OSHA, or UNIONS, or GUN FREE ZONES, or lockdowns at school, or seventeen or so medical specialists to assist my family doctor for every different cut or scratch or broken bone?) I even ate some dirt, got bit by big red ants, swam in ponds yellow with bovine urine, drank water out of a garden hose, peed on trees, crapped in the creek, etc. I didn't worry about politics, or perverts, or what color your skin was, and I could even tell the difference between a boy and a girl without assistance from a school teacher. How in the Hell did I make it to my ripe old age? Amazing, simply amazing! I had plenty to do and plenty of fun.

I feel sorry for children these days with their multitude of stresses; no wonder they take drugs, crack up, shoot up schools, riot, and terrorize people; that's about the only way they can get any attention.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Great post Abel..

I bet many of us had the same kind of childhood/youth.. I missed the bovine pond, but got the Mississippi just below the sewer pipes..

Nice to think of that time..

Got a new guy down the road, or my cousin from ND came to visit...

PeterS

The second amendment says exactly what its purpose was. Further, if you had ever read anything about the ratification of the second amendment no one would need to explain it to you.

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.

1) A well-regulated militia--was one that consisted of oversight by local government authorities, the State authorities, and finally National authorities. The purpose of none of these authorities was to overthrow a legally elected government.

2)being necessary for the security of a free state--the founders saw one of the greatest threats to our liberty was a despot who could use a free standing army to suppress the populace and install his own government. You were to protect the nation not overthrow it.

3)The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This is because of 1 and 2 where you would need arms to defend the nation.

But you guys don't want to defend the nation do you? You want to overthrow legally elected governments that don't suit you warped ideological perspective. As hard as it if for your tiny little mind to grasp...that isn't why the Second Amendment was written.

Below are some links that you be useful to you if you would read them--though we all know you won't read a single one...

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+founders+were+against+a+free+standing+army&oq=th&aqs=chrome.1.69i59l3j69i57j69i61l2.4075j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2013/07/why-founding-fathers-would-object-todays-military/66668/
https://www.fff.org/2013/03/04/gun-control-and-the-dangers-of-a-standing-army/

Rose42

Simply put - you’re wrong and simply regurgitating hoplophobe propaganda.

If you’re so cavalier with people’s rights you deserve none of your own.

JoyV

You wrote; "1) A well-regulated militia--was one that consisted of oversight by local government authorities, the State authorities, and finally National authorities. The purpose of none of these authorities was to overthrow a legally elected government."

What do you base this assertion on? Over and over the founders have defined the militia as the entire body of adult male citizens. No founder's quote I've ever read says anything about the militia needing government oversight.

As for the phrase "well-regulated"; that was a phrase in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. So, if something is “well regulated”, it is “regular” (a well regulated clock; regular as clockwork).

In the 18th century, a “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped” and organized. It does not refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term “standing army” or “regulars” to describe a professional army. Therefore, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia that was organized and maintained internal discipline. It does not imply the modern meaning of “regulated,” which means controlled or administered by some superior entity.

David Franklin Hammack has written essays on our constitution provided a list of examples. I include them here.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

For 2 and 1/2 excruciating years, you lib progs have been trying to overthrow a legally elected government that doesn't suit your warped ideological perspective.

Beginning at the very top of the leftist food chain, progressive ideologues, liberal demagogues, and partisan media hacks have wiped their asses on our constitution and the rule of law and launched the most aggressive covert campaign to take out our duly elected president, destroy his family, ruin the lives of anyone associated with him, disenfranchise 63 million American voters, and "fundamentally transform" our nation into some sort of socialist Utopia, and you think we who stand resolute against such an unconscionable act of anti-Americanism "don't want to defend the nation"?

Wow, your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Federalist #46: Madison

James Madison, Property
29 Mar. 1792 Papers 14:266--68

This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

JoyV

PeterS

And how am I wrong? I didn't change a single word of the amendment. Aren't you people Constitutionalists devoted to the EXACT wording of the Constitution? Well, I've done exactly what you claim to stand for and in this case, you will find that that's exactly what the founders were trying to say.

So where in any of that does it say the amendment is to provide a force to overthrow the government? Show me the specific line and word!

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Drama queen much. Defensive militia! The biggest danger to real Americans freedom is people like you.

Your type, who are the enemies of freedom, should be stopped dead in your tracks!!

Rose42

Ignorance is the enemy. The OP was ignorant.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Yes!

Kevyn

To a certain extent current thermal imaging technology can spot concealed weapons. In a few years every police department will have optical equipment that they can use passively and actively to spot people carrying firearms. CC cameras using algorithms will spot armed criminals on the street and alert police who can confront the person and secure the weapon. This will be a tremendous deterrent to carrying weapons and do away with any excuse to do so.