# The real history of gun rights that Americans are not taught.



## the other mike (Jun 16, 2019)

Basically, the Second Amendment was about killing Indians, taking their land and controlling the slave population, according to author and historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz.

For the record I think we need to protect the 2nd amendment,
including assault weapons, so I disagree with her there, but I still believe in being honest about our past.

You’ll have heard it said by many liberals and even progressives that the Second Amendment centers on arming militias in a post-colonial America. But the reality behind the legal statute that enshrined gun rights in the Constitution is more nuanced, and far more sinister. As Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz notes in her book, “Loaded: A Disarming History of the Second Amendment,” the arming of state militias (which ultimately became the National Guard) was already noted elsewhere in the Constitution, so why was there a need to stipulate the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights, which pertains to individuals? That’s because, according to Dunbar-Ortiz, the Second Amendment can be traced directly back to settler colonialism.

*https://www.truthdig.com/articles/lies-liberals-tell-themselves-about-the-second-amendment/*


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 16, 2019)

So?


.


----------



## the other mike (Jun 16, 2019)

bear513 said:


> So?
> 
> 
> .


What's your point ? No thoughts at all except
, duh ...so ?!


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 16, 2019)

It's a blatant, ridiculous lie that the left *wrong* trots out every so often, trying to tie the right to bear arms to slavery, racism, and genocide; to suggest that to this day, those who support this right do so for racist reasons.

  The truth is that it is the denial of this right that is rooted in racism.  The earliest gun control laws in this country were enacted at the behest of the Ku Klux Klan, and were specifically crafted to disarm free black people, in order to make them safer and easier prey for the KKK.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 16, 2019)

Well, there are still Indians out there... what's your point?


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jun 16, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Basically, the Second Amendment was about killing Indians, taking their land and controlling the slave population, according to author and historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz.
> 
> You’ll have heard it said by many liberals and even progressives that the Second Amendment centers on arming militias in a post-colonial America. But the reality behind the legal statute that enshrined gun rights in the Constitution is more nuanced, and far more sinister. As Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz notes in her book, “Loaded: A Disarming History of the Second Amendment,” the arming of state militias (which ultimately became the National Guard) was already noted elsewhere in the Constitution, so why was there a need to stipulate the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights, which pertains to individuals? That’s because, according to Dunbar-Ortiz, the Second Amendment can be traced directly back to settler colonialism.
> 
> *https://www.truthdig.com/articles/lies-liberals-tell-themselves-about-the-second-amendment/*





Angelo said:


> As Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz notes in her book, “Loaded: A Disarming History of the Second Amendment,” the arming of state militias (which ultimately became the National Guard) was already noted elsewhere in the Constitution,


it was noted elsewhere in the Constitution?

Was it 'noted' BEFORE the 2nd Amendment?


----------



## deannalw (Jun 16, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Well, there are still Indians out there... what's your point?




We missed some.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 16, 2019)

deannalw said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Well, there are still Indians out there... what's your point?
> ...



Then  we still need gun rights.  QED.


----------



## the other mike (Jun 16, 2019)

WillHaftawaite said:


> it was noted elsewhere in the Constitution?
> 
> Was it 'noted' BEFORE the 2nd Amendment?


100 years before under the states actually( 13 colonies)....
*
Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz:* You know,* it was already in the constitutions of Virginia, South Carolina, Massachusetts, about five of the colonies, of the 13 colonies. You know, they were formed, the states were formed in 1775, 1776, and it was a whole decade later before the Constitution. During the war, they operated under the Continental Congress.* So they already had these, and they had imported them from their colonial practices. So what you have to look at, since they didn’t really argue about the matter of the Second Amendment, why they put it in under the rights of men, individual rights–and second only to freedom of speech–is, you have to look at what was going on at the time. And this was a country, a nation state, formed as an imperialist state, as a kind of knockoff from the British empire. So you have to see it as pushing, as a split in the empire, and the beginning of another one, and not some kind of democratic–it was a republic only because they overthrew a king, and you know, they talked about having another king. But George Washington–our presidency is more or less a kind of operative kingship, the executive. But what they imported was the already practice of settler militias organizing themselves. And they were very well-regulated, with great motivation, because that’s how settler colonialism works. They take the land, and then the federal government is set up basically to then indemnify it, legalize it. And that’s the story of the next hundred years, and the United States taking the continent.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 16, 2019)

Angelo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > So?
> ...



So the NRA is against background checks because they are afraid of Indian attacks?


----------



## deannalw (Jun 16, 2019)

fncceo said:


> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...




Exactly!!

Plus, I gotta take out some armadillo critters in the woods out back.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 16, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Where does it say that in one of our rights?

.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 16, 2019)

deannalw said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Well, there are still Indians out there... what's your point?
> ...



Was thinking of the same thing, these guys and trying to take history out of context is ridiculous.

.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 16, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> So the NRA is against background checks because they are afraid of Indian attacks?


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 16, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




sorry the NRA is not against background checks and most other gun laws on the books,,,

theyre frauds,,,


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 16, 2019)

bear513 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...



Just going by claims made in the OP


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jun 16, 2019)

Angelo said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > it was noted elsewhere in the Constitution?
> ...




Cute

Because it was covered in a half dozen or so state Constitutions, it should have been left out the National Constitution?

Archie had a name for people like that.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 16, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...



Say what? The NRA always uses the 2nd amendment to fight any type of gun law.

.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 16, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...



Yes they are. They have fought every effort to enact universal background checks.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 16, 2019)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...



I am glad someone read it, because I sure wasn't going too, knowing the history and biased of the OP.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jun 16, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Maybe they're smart enough to realize that criminals won't bother with them.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 16, 2019)

bear513 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




well based on all the gun laws on the books they aint doing a very good job,,,


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 16, 2019)

WillHaftawaite said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



That applies to every law on the books, doesn't it?


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 16, 2019)

bear513 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




NRA-ILA | NRA's Support for the National Instant Criminal Background System: Fact Checking the Fact Checker


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jun 16, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



pretty much


20,000+ firearm laws on the books.

Criminals ignore them.

thousands of laws on the books regulating driving

Criminals ignore them.

etc etc​


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 16, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Oh come on now who is your link trying to bullshit?


.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 16, 2019)

bear513 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




its an NRA link,,,,


----------



## Mike Dwight (Jun 16, 2019)

I once had a for-profit idea that I Organize Corporate End-of-Days armories in your neighborhood, you asubscribe to an access code. This is about the militia-ready United States is it Not? Come on, really? You want guns for somebody about to jump you in your home?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 16, 2019)

WillHaftawaite said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...



And we have my go to favorite the 1968 gun law that no one Democrat or Republicans ever enforce , if they did something like 80% of Americans couldn't own a gun including Obama


----------



## Crixus (Jun 16, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Basically, the Second Amendment was about killing Indians, taking their land and controlling the slave population, according to author and historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz.
> 
> For the record I think we need to protect the 2nd amendment,
> including assault weapons, so I disagree with her there, but I still believe in being honest about our past.
> ...




That’s stupid.  Nothing but chicken scratch scrawled out by a pretentious feat who enjoys the smell of her own farts. Indians got plenty of guns. Guns were put into their hands by both sides fighting the war. Compleat miss by an over educated dingbat.


----------



## Mike Dwight (Jun 16, 2019)

Ya and the reason they don't want us organizing militias? No idea. Because standing armies are just so super.


----------



## the other mike (Jun 16, 2019)

bear513 said:


> I am glad someone read it, because I sure wasn't going too, knowing the history and biased of the OP.


And what bias would that be twisted sister ?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 16, 2019)

Angelo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > I am glad someone read it, because I sure wasn't going too, knowing the history and biased of the OP.
> ...




You?


----------



## the other mike (Jun 16, 2019)

bear513 said:


> You?


As if you know anything about me.
Now run along and troll somewhere else, Chip.


----------



## Mike Dwight (Jun 16, 2019)

Those alternative antifas are getting old too bear. Maybe you're into that.


----------



## the other mike (Jun 16, 2019)

Suck on this bear.


----------



## the other mike (Jun 16, 2019)

Mike Dwight said:


> Those alternative antifas are getting old too bear. Maybe you're into that.


WE know what his fantasy is now.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 16, 2019)

The second amendment was about ensuring armed citizens to serve in the militia 

We had no standing army and relied on militias to protect against Indian attacks


----------



## the other mike (Jun 16, 2019)

The true colors emerging here. 
And I thought white supremacy was just a fake news conspiracy theory.


----------



## Mike Dwight (Jun 16, 2019)

Worse than that, wasn't it the listed primary national defence asset. With a million man militia in this country of 12 million, we are invulnerably. yay yay. 4 more years.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 16, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Mike Dwight said:
> 
> 
> > Those alternative antifas are getting old too bear. Maybe you're into that.
> ...



Says the guy always posting gay stuff...


.


----------



## the other mike (Jun 16, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Says the guy always posting gay stuff...
> 
> 
> .


Evidence ?
I didn't think so.
Run along Cubby...


----------



## Pilot1 (Jun 16, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> It's a blatant, ridiculous lie that the left *wrong* trots out every so often, trying to tie the right to bear arms to slavery, racism, and genocide; to suggest that to this day, those who support this right do so for racist reasons.
> 
> The truth is that it is the denial of this right that is rooted in racism.  The earliest gun control laws in this country were enacted at the behest of the Ku Klux Klan, and were specifically crafted to disarm free black people, in order to make them safer and easier prey for the KKK.



And the illegal Sullivan Act which became law in 1911 was designed to keep newer immigrants from legally having guns in NYC.  Irish, Italians, and others who were thought to be inferior by the native population.  It still stands.


----------



## the other mike (Jun 16, 2019)

From the brilliant OP;
...when they reached the Pacific, and those militias in operation in northern California. *Basically, the Second Amendment is about killing Indians, taking their land, and increasingly, slave patrols.* Because the cotton kingdom immediately–once they clear out, ethnically cleanse the whole eastern part of North America to the Mississippi, all of the native peoples, who were all agriculturalists, and force them into Indian territory, that’s when the cotton kingdom–and that wasn’t complete until 1845–but during that process of pushing them out, that the cotton kingdom blossomed. So that was where the Indian militias then, that had operated, moved west. And the militias east of the Mississippi were used for slave patrols. And I have a whole chapter on slave patrols, and that’s probably–I think, you know, when they’re making the Second Amendment, given that almost all of them are, if they’re not slave owners like Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Monroe–they’re slave traders. Or land–they’re all land speculators, including the good ones, John Adams, and all–they’re all involved.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 16, 2019)

Pilot1 said:


> And the illegal Sullivan Act which became law in 1911 was designed to keep newer immigrants from legally having guns in NYC.  Irish, Italians, and others who were thought to be inferior by the native population.  It still stands.



  It was very specifically crafted to give the advantage to Timothy Sullivan's criminal gang, putting an ally of his in charge of determining who could and could not legally acquire and possess arms.  It was meant to disarm law-abiding citizens, as well as rival gang members.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 16, 2019)

Angelo said:


> The true colors emerging here.
> And I thought white supremacy was just a fake news conspiracy theory.


----------



## the other mike (Jun 16, 2019)




----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 16, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


We have background checks already, what YOU want is unconstitutional.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 16, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



It's just feel good stuff, like they really will enforce it.


.


----------



## the other mike (Jun 16, 2019)

Background checks don't prevent psychopaths from purchasing assault weapons.
If you already own some, fine...unloading 30 rounds on a lifesize Obama mannequin gives you a hard on, go for it.  But there are too many crazies in this country for having shelves stocked with automatic weapons designed for war being manufactured and sold.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 16, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Background checks don't prevent psychopaths from purchasing assault weapons.
> If you already own some, fine...unloading 30 rounds on a lifesize Obama mannequin gives you a hard on, go for it.  But there are too many crazies in this country for having shelves stocked with automatic weapons designed for war being manufactured and sold.


The ENTIRE purpose of the second amendment is to ENSURE the civilian population has military style weapons. As to the Supreme Court it ruled that very thing.


----------



## the other mike (Jun 16, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The ENTIRE purpose of the second amendment is to ENSURE the civilian population has military style weapons. As to the Supreme Court it ruled that very thing.


Yeah. They're called SWAT teams.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 16, 2019)

Angelo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > The ENTIRE purpose of the second amendment is to ENSURE the civilian population has military style weapons. As to the Supreme Court it ruled that very thing.
> ...


Bernie Sanders statement and those of any one that claims the second is only for sport or hunting is sadly mistaken that is NOT the main purpose of the second amendment and MILITARY style weapons ARE protected.


----------



## Pilot1 (Jun 16, 2019)

Angelo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > The ENTIRE purpose of the second amendment is to ENSURE the civilian population has military style weapons. As to the Supreme Court it ruled that very thing.
> ...



No, they're called LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.  SWAT Teams are the government's enforcers.  They are NOT "The PEOPLE".

The Second Amendment is for Citizens, The People, to have a means of defense against a Government that goes BAD.  The 2A guarantees the Natural Right of self defense with arms.  It insures that we can at least have what a common foot soldier is entitled to carry.  Arms that can be cairred by a person.  MILITARY style arms.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 16, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Nope, and nope.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 16, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




$200 for a gun permit say in New York City is the same as an unconstitutional poll tax. Why they are not treated alike/ same is anyones guess.


.


----------



## Pilot1 (Jun 16, 2019)

bear513 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



You can't get a permit to carry a gun in NYC.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 16, 2019)

Pilot1 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



$200 dollar gun license? What is it???


.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 16, 2019)

bear513 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



You should find out what a poll tax is. I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with gun permits, dumb ass. New York city can do what they want. I don't care.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 16, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




If you don't care you don't care about the Constitution.. they are the same, if you can't see it your a fucking idiot


----------



## Pilot1 (Jun 16, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



A license to PURCHASE a gun.  You can not even go to a gun shop and touch a gun in New York State without applying for a gun license and paying the fee to buy a gun.  It can take months to get approved.  You can't carry it, but can keep it in your home if approved for the gun license.


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Jun 16, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Basically, the Second Amendment was about killing Indians, taking their land and controlling the slave population, according to author and historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz.
> 
> For the record I think we need to protect the 2nd amendment,
> including assault weapons, so I disagree with her there, but I still believe in being honest about our past.
> ...


*I read many history books, and just finish one by Edwin D Burr called "The American Constitution"   He explained that the Gun was used for hunting, defending your home, and protection again raiders, and protecting your Nation.   Just in that order.  It is every mans duty to protect his way of life and this Act is the most important for it is the only and the last way of protecting the Nation.  This book was written in 1802.  I looked it up and it is not in the Library of Congress.  Wondering why I called my Senator and he made me look really stupid....The Brits burned down the place during the war of 1812.    *


----------



## the other mike (Jun 16, 2019)

Pilot1 said:


> You can't get a permit to carry a gun in NYC.


If you're a civilian, I believe this may be true.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 16, 2019)

Pilot1 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Pilot1 said:
> ...



Thanks for the clarification, so only rich people can afford to buy guns and a hassle to boot, yet anyone can vote.


.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 16, 2019)

bear513 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



A poll tax is a tax you have to pay before you can vote. One of us is a fucking idiot, and I'm pretty sure it's the one who thinks a poll tax has something to do with gun permits.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 16, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




So you never read the amendments now to the Constitution? Why must you have to pay the government for the right to own a gun, but not have to pay the government the right to vote?

.


----------



## the other mike (Jun 16, 2019)

Dan Stubbs said:


> ....*protecting the Nation.    *


Exactly. 
Whose nation were they protecting ?

Guess it depends on who's writing the history books.


----------



## Pilot1 (Jun 16, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Well, at least with some disposable income, but the bottom line is NY is very unconstitutionally restrictive, and limits the type of firearm someone can own, and don't even think about carrying it concealed for protection as you won't get a permit to carry.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 16, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to require a tax to exercise a protected right.


----------



## Pilot1 (Jun 16, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> > ....*protecting the Nation.    *
> ...



Oh, boo hoo.  The Stone Age Indians assimilated into an advanced western culture.  Maybe they should stop with the fire water at this point?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 16, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> > ....*protecting the Nation.    *
> ...



When did Indians own land?


It was a preposterous concept to them at the time.


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 16, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



He doesn't want to acknowledge it.

.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 16, 2019)

bear513 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Not very bright, are you? The 24th amendment banned poll taxes. I don't think it mentioned fees for a gun permit.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 16, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



A fee is not a tax.


----------



## the other mike (Jun 16, 2019)

bear513 said:


> When did Indians own land?
> 
> 
> It was a preposterous concept to them at the time.
> ...


You're a heartless soul, but I must say 
I admire your candor in displaying your arrogance about it.
Well done sir.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 17, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




I should have to pay a fee for something that is a God given right? Do I need to pay a fee to have an axe? A bass guitar? A weed eater? Screwdrivers, knives?


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 17, 2019)

Angelo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > When did Indians own land?
> ...




I guess you could say that the indigenous people here at the time could have benefitted by patrolling their borders?? Those that don't learn from history.....you get the point.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jun 17, 2019)

WillHaftawaite said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...



Correction: 45000 federal, state, and local statutes, rules, ordinances, regulations, Executive Orders, court decisions, etc. and counting


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 17, 2019)

Porter Rockwell said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Yet criminals ignore every single law, of any kind concerning everything on the books. Are all those laws useless? Should we just eliminate all laws?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 17, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Background checks don't prevent psychopaths from purchasing assault weapons.
> ...


It was never the intention to provide military weapons and never allowed


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 17, 2019)

Pilot1 said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


SWAT teams protect We the People


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 17, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...




LIAR!!!


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 17, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jun 17, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > WillHaftawaite said:
> ...



I wonder what part of shall not be infringed that the politicians and judges don't get.  The left is waaaaay too stupid to understand it; the right has their noses buried in Donald Trump's ass and he's the most gun hating liberal in my lifetime.

All people do is talk about banning the damn guns.  Ban the sons of bitches that endanger our lives.  The legal and mental health community already know WHO poses a threat to society.  So, rather than have people who have racked up 20 police reports, umpteen arrests, gotten suspended from school, reported for violence, etc. investigated and dealt with, all the anti gunners want are more laws that affect weapons and the citizens access to them.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is an *unalienable* Right and the government has no* legitimate authority* to enforce laws against owning or carrying the weapon (other than the manner in which one may be worn in public.)  Government has the power to pass and enforce unconstitutional laws, but they lack the authority.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jun 17, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...



Who told you that?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 17, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



LAIR!


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 17, 2019)

WillHaftawaite said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Our founders never had machine guns.....you can look it up


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jun 17, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




maybe you should


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 17, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




the 2nd never specifies gun, let alone which kind,,,
so any kind is covered,,,


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jun 17, 2019)

*Before Gatling – Who Was The First To Invent A Rapid-Fire Gun? - MilitaryHistoryNow.com*

*"Puckle Gun – 1718*
The brainchild of an English inventor and lawyer by the name of James Puckle, the gun that bore his name was essentially an over-sized, hand-cranked revolver – invented more than 120 years before Samuel Colt’s legendary six-shooter. The weapon, also known as a _defense gun_, had a single barrel, behind which sat a large 11-chamber cylinder, each loaded with a 32 mm ball (about twice the diameter of a musket round) with a powder charge. Originally intended to be mounted on the sides of warships and fired directly at the deck crews of enemy vessels, the gun could loose about 10 rounds a minute — roughly three times the rate of fire of a musket of the time. Puckle designed two versions – one that fired conventional round shot and another variant launched square bullets. Considered much more lethal than ball shot, these block-shaped rounds were only to be used against Muslim Turks and other non-Christian enemies. While investors had high hopes for the Puckle gun’s popularity, the British military remained unimpressed. The complexity of its design made it impractical, especially in the era before interchangeable parts. Does this mean the gun was ahead of its time? Perhaps. But contemporaries pointed out that the only people ever harmed by the Puckle Gun were its investors."


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 17, 2019)

Porter Rockwell said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Porter Rockwell said:
> ...



Those people with umpteen arrests can easily buy guns. What do you suggest to keep them from it?


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jun 21, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



You cannot deny to people their Right to keep and bear Arms on the basis of an arrest.  The difference between what Donald Trump and I believe in is that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  Short answer if you don't want to read the rest of this:  You can't deny people their Rights based upon arrests.

The best way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in custody (i.e. jail, prison, mental institution.)  *AFTER *a person is convicted of a crime, they should retain ALL of their Rights once their sentence has been completed.

That means that when people are convicted the actually *go to prison*. Then we institute prison reform.  That means we* rehabilitate *the people in prison *OR *let them stay there.  Early release would be earned.  I wrote many pages of proposed legislation on prison reform.

Better than prison reform, I also wrote a bill and am always looking for co - sponsors.  It would identify *at risk*  (those we know are going likely to do violence) children / youths and do a civil intervention *BEFORE *they end up in a life of crime. You identify them and help them before their lives spiral out of control.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jun 21, 2019)

Porter Rockwell said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Porter Rockwell said:
> ...



Not to oversimplify it, but if someone is arrested (or for youth has reportable offenses - even in school)  three or more times in less than 2 years, they need a *civil intervention* to see what is going on in their life.  Identify the problem (s) and deal with it.


----------



## the other mike (Jun 21, 2019)

"... Because we have mixed feelings; we wouldn’t mind an armed revolution; I really wouldn’t, you know. That’s not the same as, I don’t have to have the Second Amendment to help with an armed revolution. Because I would be, you know–**you’re going to be criminalized anyway.* You say, oh, they gave me the right to overthrow them–you know, it’s an absurd argument that you need the Second Amendment to make a revolution. That, you know, that’s a contradiction in terms."
Lies Liberals Tell Themselves About the Second Amendment

*With or without a gun , if they decide to come after you as 
a dissenter or any kind of threat to their 'national security' apparatus, 
you don't stand a chance without the police and military on your side. Make no mistake, they will wage war on their enemy 7000 miles away or right here( just ask the ND water protectors). And they run out of prison space, they have plenty of FEMA camps ready to go.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2019)

Well, all I can say is if someone breaks into my property threatening me with a gun, I sure as Hell want a bigger more powerful gun.   Why should criminals be the only ones to own guns?


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 22, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Those people with umpteen arrests can easily buy guns. What do you suggest to keep them from it?



They buy them (guns) illegally and that will never be stopped.  My suggestion is to SHOOT them when they threaten YOU with their ILLEGAL gun.  Trust me, most criminals are cowards and depend on an unarmed populace.  Once they get knocked off on a regular basis, by armed innocent folks protecting themselves, a lot of this 'gun violence' will come to a screeching halt.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 22, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Those people with umpteen arrests can easily buy guns. What do you suggest to keep them from it?
> ...


It already has. since the 90s firearms crimes are down a damn lot with the steady increase of armed civilians.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam (Jun 23, 2019)

Porter Rockwell said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I like your ideas.  Do you believe that had this been the law of the land, that Nik Cruz, the Parkland shooter, would/could have been in custody on numerous occasions which may have prevented him from ending up as a  mass shooter?


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jun 23, 2019)

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > Porter Rockwell said:
> ...



He would have been in custody.  Given the police reports and the times he was in trouble both in school and at home, he would probably ended up on a boys ranch, learning some values and coping skills.

He also needed a strong male model to help him navigate the complexities of life and give him something more to do than play violent video games and fantasize about chaos, mayhem, and death.

All sides of the political spectrum have something they're good at.  Where I live, private organizations are doing things like mentorship programs that really impact the lives of the youth.  Look at what these people have accomplished:

About The 100 – 100 Black Men of Atlanta

Being white, I'm really frustrated by the fact that when I started a ministry with the intent of offering the same kinds of services, the predominantly white population, including the local politicians, ignored me.  Yet the fact is, most mass shooters are white.  If there is no interest from private citizens to better their culture, then it means the government will have to take all the reports they generate, extrapolate what they can, and focus on finding the root of the problem (a drug addicted kid, one without parental supervision, a dysfunctional home, drug addicted / abusive parents, etc.) and address the underlying cause of the problem, not cover it up with drugs and wait for the inevitable to happen.

Thanks for the words of support.  They mean a lot when nothing is happening and it says that you care about the future of our country.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jun 23, 2019)

Angelo said:


> "... Because we have mixed feelings; we wouldn’t mind an armed revolution; I really wouldn’t, you know. That’s not the same as, I don’t have to have the Second Amendment to help with an armed revolution. Because I would be, you know–**you’re going to be criminalized anyway.* You say, oh, they gave me the right to overthrow them–you know, it’s an absurd argument that you need the Second Amendment to make a revolution. That, you know, that’s a contradiction in terms."
> Lies Liberals Tell Themselves About the Second Amendment
> 
> *With or without a gun , if they decide to come after you as
> ...



I see all sides of this.  According to Thomas Jefferson:

“_Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual._”

I do not believe that we have a Right to have an armed revolt against the government unless and until the people have agreed to and done the following:

1)  The current government is an illegal / de facto / unconstitutional government that is operating outside the bounds of the Constitution

2)  That the people have exhausted all of their nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress

3)  Any armed conflict will be in response to the government trying to enforce unjust, unconstitutional and indefensible laws.

This country had a mere 56 signers to the Declaration of Independence.  Jesus changed the world (whether you believe he was or was not the son of God) with a dozen apostles.  On the other side of the political spectrum, Hitler began with a few men sitting around the table in a local pub. He damn near ruled the world with a country no bigger than the size of Texas.  Successful changes in the status quo do not start with the masses.  You don't need the military on your side.  The U.S. did not win in Southeast Asia, despite having the same advantage over the VC as government has over us.  Ditto for the Russians trying to take over in Afghanistan.  

We are living in the times of the most anti-gun president in the history of the United States.  There is a lot to do.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam (Jun 23, 2019)

Porter Rockwell said:


> He would have been in custody. Given the police reports and the times he was in trouble both in school and at home, he would probably ended up on a boys ranch, learning some values and coping skills.


He absolutely should have been in custody in my opinion.  I've spent a considerable amount of time pondering how to get to the root of the problem and discovered that many times it appears that people fail or are afraid to take action even when it's brought to their attention that a particular person is consistently causing a problem.  I've outlined all of the indicators in Cruz's case in the following thread.  I find it anguishing that they want to convict the school resource office who actually tried to get Cruz committed because of this ambush when everyone knew that he was a problem so much so that he was place in some sort of program that basically shield a minor offender from the repercussions of their acts by sealing their criminal records, I think that was how it was explained.  
He always hated women.  Then he decided to kill them.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jun 23, 2019)

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > He would have been in custody. Given the police reports and the times he was in trouble both in school and at home, he would probably ended up on a boys ranch, learning some values and coping skills.
> ...



I have spent years studying people who commit mass murder with weapons.  I came up with a list of 16 indicators (markers) and once a person goes over half of those markers plus takes psychotropic drugs (SSRIs), there is a 100 percent chance that individual will commit a violent act against someone else.

Nicholas Cruz went over half of those markers and the SSRIs pushed him over the limit.  Today, when a child enters school, if they have a behavioral problem, the *FIRST* thing the system does is put them on drugs - Ritalin, Adderall, Prozac, Lexapro, etc., etc.  How stupid can they be!!!

What if the problem is the parents lack of parenting skills, abuse by the parents, a child in a one parent home, or the child of drug abusers?  We already spend the money to generate reports.  Why not have a special unit at the county level that would interview the child, then go to the parents home to inform them and develop a profile on what they observe?

Are the parents cooperative and caring?  Is it a single parent who is frazzled and cannot take care of the family?  What kind of conditions does the interviewer see in the home?  If the parents are uncooperative, a criminal background check might lead the interviewer down a different path rather than putting all their focus on the child.  What does the interviewer conclude about the child after the child has been evaluated and interviewed?

I think if we had a grass roots effort to examine this idea and then bring it before the public, we could do what the legislators won't do.  I think we should be looking at preventative measures.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam (Jun 23, 2019)

Porter Rockwell said:


> I think if we had a grass roots effort to examine this idea and then bring it before the public, we could do what the legislators won't do. I think we should be looking at preventative measures.


I agree but unfortunately my experiences with local organizations is that they're focused on keeping famalies together even when that's not inecessarily in the best interest of the child.  In Cruz's case, his behavior was so blatent and over the top, none of them can state that they didn't know he had problems.  And the way our laws are written here in WA state, you have to be a family member I believe to request intervention.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jun 23, 2019)

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > I think if we had a grass roots effort to examine this idea and then bring it before the public, we could do what the legislators won't do. I think we should be looking at preventative measures.
> ...




It would take changes in the laws of each state, but if a person is involved in behavior that is known to likely become an imminent threat, then local governments *CAN *investigate.  When kids are expelled or suspended from school; when they generate a police investigation and a report is filed, then the local LEO community already has the authority to investigate and remove children from dangerous / abusive homes and / or have a mental health official evaluate a child.

All great ideas begin at the grass roots level.  So, if you ever decide that this is worth pursuing, I'm always looking for people to help bring the idea to the attention of legislators - or anyone else that would like to see something done, PM me.


----------



## Abatis (Jun 23, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Basically, the Second Amendment was about killing Indians, taking their land and controlling the slave population, according to author and historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz.



I had replied to this OP before the board hiccuped; seems the post was transported into the WWW abyss.

Just wanted to stop back and just make sure that *you* know that this theory isn't new or original to this kooky SJW, and most important, not in any way correct.

It *first came to being in 1998 in a law review article written by a guy aptly named Bogus, called, The Hidden History of the Second Amendment.*  This article was a product of the times, not the historical record . . .  It was written at a time when anti-gun academia was in a tailspin and just throwing whatever BS they could think up to disparage the "Standard Model", AKA the individual right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

That article barely made a ripple then in the legal realm or in academia *which the author admits*.  It slipped into the obscurity it deserved and was forgotten.

Fast forward to 2013 and a Progressive commentator thought to capitalize on the racial and cultural divisiveness of the Obama years and the shock of Sandy Hook and he *resurrected the Bogus theory in an article published by TruthOut, The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery.*

This article did make waves in the leftist blogosphere and among various racial rabble-rousers and gun control advocates, but again was ignored by academics and those in the legal field . . .   With one notable exception.

Writing in _The Root_, a respected historian took the TruthOut article apart and chastised the author Thom Hartmann.

His commentary is worth reading in its entirety, (because he is a liberal kindred spirit to Hatmann and Bogus, an anti-gunner / individual right denier), just so you can relieve yourself of any thought that the "slave patrol" theory and this latest retread of it, has any value:

*2nd Amendment Passed to Protect Slavery? No!*

.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jun 24, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Basically, the Second Amendment was about killing Indians, taking their land and controlling the slave population, according to author and historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz.


Horsepucky.
The right to keep and bear arms is, at its most basic level revolves around the right to self-defense, exercised individually or collectively.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam (Jun 25, 2019)

Porter Rockwell said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> > Porter Rockwell said:
> ...


Thank you, I'm extremely busy at the moment but would love to discuss this further with you after I meet a couple of time sensative deadlines over the next few weeks.  Look for a PM from me nonetheless.  

Talk to you soon...
-Mariyam


----------



## Picaro (Jun 27, 2019)

Our founders never had machine guns.....you can look it up[/QUOTE]

Some citizens could own cannons, though.

In any case, the fact is states could and did pass and enforce gun control laws, same as they had state supported religious sects and several things that would annoy ideologues on either wing, like regulation of corporations and allowing very few the privilege of limited liability protections of shareholders. Gun control laws were extensively based on racial discrimination, from colonial times onward, but they applied many of the restrictions now whined about in this thread. Pseudo-intellectuals trying to use 'The Founders' in silly appeals to authority only prove their ignorance on both guns and religion. Many towns and territories in the 'Old West' practiced strict gun controls as well.


----------



## Abatis (Jun 27, 2019)

Picaro said:


> In any case, the fact is states could and did pass and enforce gun control laws, same as they had state supported religious sects and several things that would annoy ideologues on either wing, like regulation of corporations and allowing very few the privilege of limited liability protections of shareholders. Gun control laws were extensively based on racial discrimination, from colonial times onward, but they applied many of the restrictions now whined about in this thread. Pseudo-intellectuals trying to use 'The Founders' in silly appeals to authority only prove their ignorance on both guns and religion. Many towns and territories in the 'Old West' practiced strict gun controls as well.



But the discussion is about the 2nd Amendment and the federally recognized and secured right to arms.  Your argument has no weight and your chastising people for citing 'The Founders' shows your ignorance of the legal operation of the Bill of Rights on state laws . . .  Which was ZERO!

The Bill of Rights had no impact on any state laws until the ratification of the 14th Amendment and that was frustrated by SCOTUS in 1873 in _The Slaughterhouse Cases_.

Specifically for the right to arms -- as recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment -- it was not enforceable (incorporated) against states until 2010, made so in _McDonald v Chicago_ and the impact of incorporation has yet to be realized.

.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jun 27, 2019)

This site did something strange.  I am not responsible for the way it quoted Picaro.  Picaro wrote:

_


Picaro said:





Our founders never had machine guns.....you can look it up
		
Click to expand...

_
_Some citizens could own cannons, though._

_In any case, the fact is states could and did pass and enforce gun control laws, same as they had state supported religious sects and several things that would annoy ideologues on either wing, like regulation of corporations and allowing very few the privilege of limited liability protections of shareholders. Gun control laws were extensively based on racial discrimination, from colonial times onward, but they applied many of the restrictions now whined about in this thread. Pseudo-intellectuals trying to use 'The Founders' in silly appeals to authority only prove their ignorance on both guns and religion. Many towns and territories in the 'Old West' practiced strict gun controls as well.[/QUOTE]
_
*RESPONSE TO PICARO*

You're making it very plain that you're addicted to partisan politics rather than a civil discussion that would lead us to the truth.  The only reason our founders didn't have "machine guns" is due to the simple fact that they had not been invented.  OTOH, high capacity firearms go back as far as 1580.

At the time that the Second Amendment was being ratified, the state of the art for multi-shot guns was the Girandoni air rifle, with a twenty-two-shot magazine capacity.  Meriwether Lewis carried a Girandoni on the Lewis and Clark expedition.  At the time, air guns were ballistically equal to powder guns in terms of bullet size and velocity.  The .46 and .49 caliber Girandoni rifles were invented around 1779 for use in European armies and were employed by elite units.   One shot could penetrate a one-inch thick wood plank or take down an elk.

There is no doubt that many a state and local jurisdiction passed anti-gun laws.  But, what must be remembered is that the courts are the bodies that the Constitution gives the authority to interpret the laws.  So, let's get real for a moment.

The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.  Only 31 years later in the state of Kentucky you will find the courts busy deciding what the Second Amendment means.

In *1822* a man named Bliss was fined $100 for carrying a concealed weapon.  He took the case to court and the law was ruled unconstitutional.  Anti-gunners might argue that Bliss was carrying a sword disguised as a cane.  But, swords are "_arms_" as per the definition of the word.  Bliss used as his defense, the state constitution which read:

 “_The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned_.”

Bottom line: Bliss won his case.  The law was declared unconstitutional.  The next time a case made it through the court system was in the state of Georgia in *1846*.  There, the Georgia Supreme Court *HELD*:

"_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right_, "

_Nunn v. State_, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In the state of Texas their Supreme Court made the Right unequivocally clear:

"The* right of a citizen *to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is *absolute*. *He does not derive it from the State government. * It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.  A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because* it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power*."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

So, while you can find all kinds of laws that infringed on the Right to keep and bear Arms, the laws were quite clear AND those laws - even back then, would have protected weapons that have a high capacity mechanism.  So, sadly, your statutes are irrelevant if / when the courts rule the law unconstitutional.  *ALL* of the early court decisions did just that.  Have I mentioned a founding father yet?


----------

