The 2nd amendment......great historical context.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html

I was listening to Tom Hartman on the radio and he makes many interesting arguments. One of his guest said that the main reason that we have the second amendment was that many of the original 13 states had active borders with wilderness and their citizens were facing attacks from native Americans after the French Indian War.

This sounded fascinating so I wanted to find some history. I found this article and I believe it provides a very reasonable framework for better understanding the meaning of the 2nd amendment. Contrary to Tom Hartman, I think it could be argued that the 2nd amendment attaches to individuals....not this concept or limiting factor of militias.........please read the link. It is a fifteen minute read.....it may be too scholarly, but I think it affirms that the argument that the 2nd amendment only applied to the power of states to raise a militia is clearly wrong. It is an individual right and protection against all government.....state and local.....federal.....very interesting read.

2seaoat wrote:http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html

I was listening to Tom Hartman on the radio and he makes many interesting arguments. One of his guest said that the main reason that we have the second amendment was that many of the original 13 states had active borders with wilderness and their citizens were facing attacks from native Americans after the French Indian War.

This sounded fascinating so I wanted to find some history. I found this article and I believe it provides a very reasonable framework for better understanding the meaning of the 2nd amendment. Contrary to Tom Hartman, I think it could be argued that the 2nd amendment attaches to individuals....not this concept or limiting factor of militias.........please read the link. It is a fifteen minute read.....it may be too scholarly, but I think it affirms that the argument that the 2nd amendment only applied to the power of states to raise a militia is clearly wrong. It is an individual right and protection against all government.....state and local.....federal.....very interesting read.

It is an individual right and protection against all government.....state and local.....federal.....very interesting read



yes but you hate guns like you hate cars without a breathalyzer on them...



After years of British oppression, the Revolutionary War was of the Brits own doing. People are feeling quite oppressed right now unfortunately and it was only 1/2 way through Obama's first term that many people had had enough. Obama ran on giveaways and emotion. That is good enough for lemmings willing to accept what the government provides.

I do not hate guns. Yes, I want ignition interlocks as standard equipment on all new cars. If somebody took the time to read the best summary of the 2nd amendment historical context, they would see that throughout history somebody has always been trying to take away people's guns, and the British had very clever hunting regulations and land owner regulations which significantly contributed to our founding fathers debating the language of the 2nd amendment. Where you think I hate guns is where we part because I think gun safety starts with registration, and registration is completely constitutional. Now when the registration tries to isolate a particular group, like the English banned Catholics from owning guns.....then it is clear under our constitutional system that there is an equal protection violation.....but banning a mortar......50 cal machine gun, or hand grenades......I think the constitution is clear that some restrictions not only are constitutional but necessary. I heard a bizarre argument on the radio that the right was never personal, and instead it was all about the militia and protecting our frontiers from native americans......this scholarly article rebuts that assumption....our founding fathers wanted all Americans to be armed regardless of the role of the State Militias.

Slicef18 wrote:I heard he other day that the guns possessed by the citizens of America constitute the third largest army in the world.

Just counting those that self-identify as hunters would enable that statement to be true! It's one reason I have never even considered a ground assault on this country as possible or having even a remote chance of success.

I heard he other day that the guns possessed by the citizens of America constitute the third largest army in the world.

If you had an opportunity to read the link, you will see hundreds of years before our revolution the British were convinced that in order to protect their country the citizens had to be armed, and fathers had to train children on the use of weapons. The debate focused on how continental Europe had traditionally banned weapons and how easily those nations were condemned to totalitarian monarchs who banned weapons.

I personally do not care if somebody has 30 guns....I only have 3, but what I am concerned about is who legally has those guns. The British would restrict gun ownership to folks who owned property and would cleverly argue that was to stop others from poaching....but the real intent was to keep the guns in the hands of the responsible and not have the rabble revolt. At various times the English would ban Catholics from owning guns, and this was the tool of governmental oppression.

What was interesting was the discussion of the federalist and anti federalist merger on the right of gun ownership and the insistent of this right being included into a distinct and separate bill of rights under amendments to the constitution. Both parties feared government...both state and federal, and that evil could lie at any level of government. Read the link......it takes awhile, but it really opened my eyes.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

- M. Gandhi

No argument here.