# The History and Constitutionality of Gun Control in the Americas and America



## Dante

*The History and Constitutionality of Gun Control in the Americas/America*

Hello Tiny Dancer. I will be here at 12:00 noon Pacific Time. Consider the question(s)

"There is a history in the Americas/America of governing bodies regulating who can own a gun, who should own a gun, how guns will be stored or kept and by whom...where to store ammunition, where one can buy ammunition and how much ammunition can and should be bought..."

Do you agree to these _facts _or am I in error? 

*Dante*

dD


----------



## tinydancer

Good afternoon Dante. I've been looking forward to this debate.

I agree that from the beginning there has always been a form of gun control in America.

 A federal law early on mandated that men were required to purchase guns and ammunition for their obligatory participation in what was known as citizen militias. 

And these guns were not only inspected on a regular basis but also registered.

Over the years there have been variations on gun ownership and regulations; nonetheless there has always been forms of gun control.

This is history.


----------



## Dante

Should the 2nd Amendment be read with this in mind? Gun control predates the formation of the US Constitution. I believe ruling powers were regulating guns and ammo in all of the new world, the Americas, right from the get go.

So with this in mind where do you stand on the Supreme Court's latest decisions concerning gun control, and where do you stand on the recent moves to pass new gun control legislation? It looked like you were posting supporting the view of the Robert's Court on this and against the recent moves to add regulation. Am I correct?


----------



## tinydancer

Dante said:


> Should the 2nd Amendment be read with this in mind? Gun control predates the formation of the US Constitution. I believe ruling powers were regulating guns and ammo in all of the new world, the Americas, right from the get go.
> 
> So with this in mind where do you stand on the Supreme Court's latest decisions concerning gun control, and where do you stand on the recent moves to pass new gun control legislation? It looked like you were posting supporting the view of the Robert's Court on this and against the recent moves to add regulation. Am I correct?



If you don't mind I'd like to tackle your questions separately. 

I think it would be quite safe to say that one of the reasons the Colonies rebelled against the British is that the rulers in England were determined to disarm the citizenry of the New World. 

A very strict form of gun control.

Being the imperialists that they were, it was imperative to disarm the Colonists to keep them subjugated and under the King's thumb. 

George III first tried to cut off all supplies of weapons to the colonies. Then he sent his troops to the New World to take away the colonists only form of protection. 

I'm sure you know the phrase " a shot heard round the world". That came from this time period. 

The Brits tried a gun grab. They tried confiscating any weapons possible. Whoa did that backfire or what?  Hence the Revolution.

And of course after independence was won by the colonists and the Founding Fathers were developing a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, the "right to bear arms" was crucial to the foundation of America.

Consequently the "right to bear arms" was dealt with in the Second Amendment. Right after the First. It was a priority for the Founding Fathers.


----------



## tinydancer

Dante said:


> Should the 2nd Amendment be read with this in mind? Gun control predates the formation of the US Constitution. I believe ruling powers were regulating guns and ammo in all of the new world, the Americas, right from the get go.
> 
> So with this in mind where do you stand on the Supreme Court's latest decisions concerning gun control, and where do you stand on the recent moves to pass new gun control legislation? It looked like you were posting supporting the view of the Robert's Court on this and against the recent moves to add regulation. Am I correct?



Now just for clarification, are you referring to the Supreme Courts decisions overturning laws in the District of Columbia and Chicago?

I'll be more than happy to respond. I just want to make sure we are talking about the same decisions here.

Do you mean the Heller and McDonald cases?


----------



## Dante

tinydancer said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should the 2nd Amendment be read with this in mind? Gun control predates the formation of the US Constitution. I believe ruling powers were regulating guns and ammo in all of the new world, the Americas, right from the get go.
> 
> So with this in mind where do you stand on the Supreme Court's latest decisions concerning gun control, and where do you stand on the recent moves to pass new gun control legislation? It looked like you were posting supporting the view of the Robert's Court on this and against the recent moves to add regulation. Am I correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now just for clarification, are you referring to the Supreme Courts decisions overturning laws in the District of Columbia and the Chicago?
> 
> I'll be more than happy to respond. I just want to make sure we are talking about the same decisions here.
Click to expand...


Yes, they appear to be the first...


----------



## Dante

tinydancer said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should the 2nd Amendment be read with this in mind? Gun control predates the formation of the US Constitution. I believe ruling powers were regulating guns and ammo in all of the new world, the Americas, right from the get go.
> 
> So with this in mind where do you stand on the Supreme Court's latest decisions concerning gun control, and where do you stand on the recent moves to pass new gun control legislation? It looked like you were posting supporting the view of the Robert's Court on this and against the recent moves to add regulation. Am I correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't mind I'd like to tackle your questions separately.
> 
> *I think it would be quite safe to say that one of the reasons the Colonies rebelled against the British is that the rulers in England were determined to disarm the citizenry of the New World.
> 
> A very strict form of gun control.*
> 
> Being the imperialists that they were, it was imperative to disarm the Colonists to keep them subjugated and under the King's thumb.
> 
> George III first tried to cut off all supplies of weapons to the colonies. Then he sent his troops to the New World to take away the colonists only form of protection.
> 
> I'm sure you know the phrase " a shot heard round the world". That came from this time period.
> 
> The Brits tried a gun grab. They tried confiscating any weapons possible. Whoa did that backfire or what?  Hence the Revolution.
> 
> And of course after independence was won by the colonists and the Founding Fathers were developing a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, the "right to bear arms" was crucial to the foundation of America.
> 
> Consequently the "right to bear arms" was dealt with in the Second Amendment. Right after the First. It was a priority for the Founding Fathers.
Click to expand...


*It is my understanding that there was no gun grab*, there was an assertion by the Crown of the authority to regulate guns and ammo...let me look up a simple example/argument/fact (maybe not exact..we shall see)

I've had friends in 





> In 1636, the first militia unit, the North Regiment of Boston, was formed, followed two years later by the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company, the oldest American military unit in existence.



I link to other sources as it makes kit easier to agree or not to 'facts' - yahoo of all places 



> What gun control laws did Great Britain have when the American colonies revolted? - Yahoo! Answers
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms or Arm Bears is a tricky issue. The issue as applied to the American Colonies was complex. There was no out & out ban against guns. An unenforceable tenet in a time & place when hunting game & killing the natives was expected. What Britain did to anger the Coloniest was to insist that they get their guns & powder from Britain, through commercial channels that could be policed. And the amount of weapons and especially powder that an individual could own was the biggest bone of contention. A man might argue that he needs a rifle and a certain amount of powder but when that man owns more than a dozen rifles and several barrels of powder, well he might be agitating against authority.
> 
> Authority was the the issue in the American Colonies. When Britain asserted authority by demanding that Americans enumerate their weapons & stores of powder and restricted the amount of gunpowder imported into the colonies and prevented th colonies from starting a gunpowder manufactury of their own, the Americans got angry. Hence the ammendent proclaiming the right to bear arms.
> 
> (and that amednment didn't come into play until after the American Revolution, in 1789 when the US Constitution was cobbled together and ratified)



*It is my understanding that there was no gun grab -- do you agree or disagree with the above, and if you disagree, how and why?*


----------



## tinydancer

Dante said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should the 2nd Amendment be read with this in mind? Gun control predates the formation of the US Constitution. I believe ruling powers were regulating guns and ammo in all of the new world, the Americas, right from the get go.
> 
> So with this in mind where do you stand on the Supreme Court's latest decisions concerning gun control, and where do you stand on the recent moves to pass new gun control legislation? It looked like you were posting supporting the view of the Robert's Court on this and against the recent moves to add regulation. Am I correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now just for clarification, are you referring to the Supreme Courts decisions overturning laws in the District of Columbia and the Chicago?
> 
> I'll be more than happy to respond. I just want to make sure we are talking about the same decisions here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they appear to be the first...
Click to expand...


I agree with the Supreme Court's decisions in both cases. Why? The Fourteenth Amendment.

Before we decided to debate, I'd been aware of this Amendment and what it contained only in general terms. 

But when I started researching this Fourteenth Amendment for our debate I was astonished to realize the deep and passionate feelings that these men had to insure that Freedmen were afforded every right and liberty that was afforded every white man. 

I knew they cared. That's why the Civil War was fought; but researching and reading their debates and their speeches it truly was inspiring. 

In my mind the two recent cases reflect explicitly my personal feelings that one cannot and must not discuss the Second Amendment without discussing the Fourteenth.


----------



## tinydancer

Dante said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should the 2nd Amendment be read with this in mind? Gun control predates the formation of the US Constitution. I believe ruling powers were regulating guns and ammo in all of the new world, the Americas, right from the get go.
> 
> So with this in mind where do you stand on the Supreme Court's latest decisions concerning gun control, and where do you stand on the recent moves to pass new gun control legislation? It looked like you were posting supporting the view of the Robert's Court on this and against the recent moves to add regulation. Am I correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't mind I'd like to tackle your questions separately.
> 
> *I think it would be quite safe to say that one of the reasons the Colonies rebelled against the British is that the rulers in England were determined to disarm the citizenry of the New World.
> 
> A very strict form of gun control.*
> 
> Being the imperialists that they were, it was imperative to disarm the Colonists to keep them subjugated and under the King's thumb.
> 
> George III first tried to cut off all supplies of weapons to the colonies. Then he sent his troops to the New World to take away the colonists only form of protection.
> 
> I'm sure you know the phrase " a shot heard round the world". That came from this time period.
> 
> The Brits tried a gun grab. They tried confiscating any weapons possible. Whoa did that backfire or what?  Hence the Revolution.
> 
> And of course after independence was won by the colonists and the Founding Fathers were developing a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, the "right to bear arms" was crucial to the foundation of America.
> 
> Consequently the "right to bear arms" was dealt with in the Second Amendment. Right after the First. It was a priority for the Founding Fathers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It is my understanding that there was no gun grab*, there was an assertion by the Crown of the authority to regulate guns and ammo...let me look up a simple example/argument/fact (maybe not exact..we shall see)
> 
> I've had friends in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1636, the first militia unit, the North Regiment of Boston, was formed, followed two years later by the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company, the oldest American military unit in existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I link to other sources as it makes kit easier to agree or not to 'facts' - yahoo of all places
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What gun control laws did Great Britain have when the American colonies revolted? - Yahoo! Answers
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms or Arm Bears is a tricky issue. The issue as applied to the American Colonies was complex. There was no out & out ban against guns. An unenforceable tenet in a time & place when hunting game & killing the natives was expected. What Britain did to anger the Coloniest was to insist that they get their guns & powder from Britain, through commercial channels that could be policed. And the amount of weapons and especially powder that an individual could own was the biggest bone of contention. A man might argue that he needs a rifle and a certain amount of powder but when that man owns more than a dozen rifles and several barrels of powder, well he might be agitating against authority.
> 
> Authority was the the issue in the American Colonies. When Britain asserted authority by demanding that Americans enumerate their weapons & stores of powder and restricted the amount of gunpowder imported into the colonies and prevented th colonies from starting a gunpowder manufactury of their own, the Americans got angry. Hence the ammendent proclaiming the right to bear arms.
> 
> (and that amednment didn't come into play until after the American Revolution, in 1789 when the US Constitution was cobbled together and ratified)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It is my understanding that there was no gun grab -- do you agree or disagree with the above, and if you disagree, how and why?*
Click to expand...


As I stated, "one" of the reasons the Revolution occured. I'll get you my sources. Pardon me for any delays, I'm on a primitive computer. Think the Flintstones. I'm pedaling hard here.



It was General Gage and he did indeed rule that the weapons must be confiscated. And this action on his part really back fired. It truly did spark the American Revolution. 

* From 1763 to 1775 he served as commander-in-chief of the British forces in North America, overseeing the British response to the 1763 Pontiac's Rebellion.

 In 1774 he was also appointed the military governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, with instructions to implement the Intolerable Acts, punishing Massachusetts for the Boston Tea Party.

* His attempts to seize military stores of Patriot militias in April 1775 sparked the Battles of Lexington and Concord, beginning the American War of Independence.

 After the Pyrrhic victory in the June Battle of Bunker Hill he was replaced by General William Howe in October 1775, and returned to Britain.*

Thomas Gage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dante

tinydancer said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now just for clarification, are you referring to the Supreme Courts decisions overturning laws in the District of Columbia and the Chicago?
> 
> I'll be more than happy to respond. I just want to make sure we are talking about the same decisions here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they appear to be the first...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with the Supreme Court's decisions in both cases. Why? The Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Before we decided to debate, I'd been aware of this Amendment and what it contained only in general terms.
> 
> But when I started researching this Fourteenth Amendment for our debate I was astonished to realize the deep and passionate feelings that these men had to insure that Freedmen were afforded every right and liberty that was afforded every white man.
> 
> I knew they cared. That's why the Civil War was fought; but researching and reading their debates and their speeches it truly was inspiring.
> 
> In my mind the two recent cases reflect explicitly my personal feelings that one cannot and must not discuss the Second Amendment without discussing the Fourteenth.
Click to expand...


The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868. 

This is what America looked like then United States presidential election, 1864 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  and the people living in America at this time were mostly not around or part of the debates that formed the USA.

I think I understand where you are coming from with this...that people need guns to be free from oppressive government...correct? If so you have cast too wide a net here and maybe have misinterpreted some things.

The 14th deals mainly with how State governments, local governments, can disenfranchise national citizens in our federal republic

Section 3, deals with people who did take up arms against what they viewed as an oppressive government...and it has been agreed that they had no right to, as we all have representation and a process in order to address great things....





> Section 3.
> 
> No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort



---

The American Civil War was fought over slavery because slavery is what the Confederate states built the foundation of their lifestyles and their economy on. Free states and new territories were making slave owners salivate over more profit


----------



## tinydancer

Dante said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they appear to be the first...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the Supreme Court's decisions in both cases. Why? The Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Before we decided to debate, I'd been aware of this Amendment and what it contained only in general terms.
> 
> But when I started researching this Fourteenth Amendment for our debate I was astonished to realize the deep and passionate feelings that these men had to insure that Freedmen were afforded every right and liberty that was afforded every white man.
> 
> I knew they cared. That's why the Civil War was fought; but researching and reading their debates and their speeches it truly was inspiring.
> 
> In my mind the two recent cases reflect explicitly my personal feelings that one cannot and must not discuss the Second Amendment without discussing the Fourteenth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868.
> 
> This is what America looked like then United States presidential election, 1864 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  and the people living in America at this time were mostly not around or part of the debates that formed the USA.
> 
> I think I understand where you are coming from with this...that people need guns to be free from oppressive government...correct? If so you have cast too wide a net here and maybe have misinterpreted some things.
> 
> The 14th deals mainly with how State governments, local governments, can disenfranchise national citizens in our federal republic
> 
> Section 3, deals with people who did take up arms against what they viewed as an oppressive government...and it has been agreed that they had no right to, as we all have representation and a process in order to address great things....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Section 3.
> 
> No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> The American Civil War was fought over slavery because slavery is what the Confederate states built the foundation of their lifestyles and their economy on. Free states and new territories were making slave owners salivate over more profit
Click to expand...


Here's why I included the Fourteenth Amendment and it goes specifically to the recent decision by the Supreme Court . And they agree the two Amendments are tied together. 

* McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___ (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. 

The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. 

The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Initially the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas.

 The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale.

 The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.

The oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010.

On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 54 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments.

It then remanded the case back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendment.*

McDonald v. Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dante

tinydancer said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It is my understanding that there was no gun grab -- do you agree or disagree with the above, and if you disagree, how and why?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I stated, "one" of the reasons the Revolution occured. I'll get you my sources. Pardon me for any delays, I'm on a primitive computer. Think the Flintstones. I'm pedaling hard here.
> 
> 
> 
> It was General Gage and he did indeed rule that the weapons must be confiscated. And this action on his part really back fired. It truly did spark the American Revolution.
> 
> * From 1763 to 1775 he served as commander-in-chief of the British forces in North America, overseeing the British response to the 1763 Pontiac's Rebellion.
> 
> In 1774 he was also appointed the military governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, with instructions to implement the Intolerable Acts, punishing Massachusetts for the Boston Tea Party.
> 
> * His attempts to seize military stores of Patriot militias in April 1775 sparked the Battles of Lexington and Concord, beginning the American War of Independence.
> 
> After the Pyrrhic victory in the June Battle of Bunker Hill he was replaced by General William Howe in October 1775, and returned to Britain.*
> 
> Thomas Gage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


General Gage was not attempting to disarm the colonies or Massachusetts. It all had to do with a growing rebellion storing a huge cache of weapons and ammo in what we would call an armory. The General did not issue an order for all Massachusetts colonists to turn in all weapons and ammo (fact?). 

Massachusetts was being punished and the other colonies, not anti-Crown but anti Parliament overreach, feared if Massachusetts could be punished for what transpired (too many issues to go into) between Massachusetts and the Crown and Parliament, it could happen to them all too.

Samuel Adams' father and many others in the colony had a battle with the authorities predating the Stamp Act...

(Coming from Boston myself....)

When after the American Revolution, Shays Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion reared their populist heads, Washington and others put down these revolts as bogus uprisings trying to hijack the American Revolution principles.

The American Revolution came about over non-representation from an authority a world away. After the colonies became a nation, they had representation. They had representation and a process to address grievances

Guns were not listed as a right in order to guarantee a revolt against the legitimate government


----------



## Dante

tinydancer said:


> Here's why I included the Fourteenth Amendment and it goes specifically to the recent decision by the Supreme Court . And they agree the two Amendments are tied together.
> 
> * McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___ (2010), is a landmark decision...*


*

It appears you are misreading the narrow focus of some cases. It is okay as this is a common error.

Infringement of rights by local governments.

The 14th came into play under an argument that Section 1, applied to the specific case out of the 7th District




			Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
		
Click to expand...


To argue the two cases adequately is not so easy as it would require reading and opining on the opinions of all the Justices involved in all the cases cited.

While I agree with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) on some points made in the two cases, some parts of the rulings seem to stretch credulity. 

Tiny Dancer: "Referring to the Supreme Courts decisions overturning laws in the District of Columbia and the Chicago...I agree with the Supreme Court's decisions in both cases."

I'm not sure you've adequately explained the why or how.*


----------



## tinydancer

Dante said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It is my understanding that there was no gun grab -- do you agree or disagree with the above, and if you disagree, how and why?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I stated, "one" of the reasons the Revolution occured. I'll get you my sources. Pardon me for any delays, I'm on a primitive computer. Think the Flintstones. I'm pedaling hard here.
> 
> 
> 
> It was General Gage and he did indeed rule that the weapons must be confiscated. And this action on his part really back fired. It truly did spark the American Revolution.
> 
> * From 1763 to 1775 he served as commander-in-chief of the British forces in North America, overseeing the British response to the 1763 Pontiac's Rebellion.
> 
> In 1774 he was also appointed the military governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, with instructions to implement the Intolerable Acts, punishing Massachusetts for the Boston Tea Party.
> 
> * His attempts to seize military stores of Patriot militias in April 1775 sparked the Battles of Lexington and Concord, beginning the American War of Independence.
> 
> After the Pyrrhic victory in the June Battle of Bunker Hill he was replaced by General William Howe in October 1775, and returned to Britain.*
> 
> Thomas Gage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> General Gage was not attempting to disarm the colonies or Massachusetts. It all had to do with a growing rebellion storing a huge cache of weapons and ammo in what we would call an armory. The General did not issue an order for all Massachusetts colonists to turn in all weapons and ammo (fact?).
> 
> Massachusetts was being punished and the other colonies, not anti-Crown but anti Parliament overreach, feared if Massachusetts could be punished for what transpired (too many issues to go into) between Massachusetts and the Crown and Parliament, it could happen to them all too.
> 
> Samuel Adams' father and many others in the colony had a battle with the authorities predating the Stamp Act...
> 
> (Coming from Boston myself....)
> 
> When after the American Revolution, Shays Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion reared their populist heads, Washington and others put down these revolts as bogus uprisings trying to hijack the American Revolution principles.
> 
> The American Revolution came about over non-representation from an authority a world away. After the colonies became a nation, they had representation. They had representation and a process to address grievances
> 
> Guns were not listed as a right in order to guarantee a revolt against the legitimate government
Click to expand...


I understand that were a myriad of reasons for the American Revolution. Of that, I have no quarrel, but many sources that I have been reading lead me to believe that Gage's intent on seizing these caches increased tensions.

Here's an example from this source. Note series of raids. I wonder now, if he'd just let sleeping dogs lie if the Revolution would have happened at all? Just a thought. 

*With tensions increasing, Gage began a series of raids in September to seize colonial supplies of munitions.

While an early raid to Somerville, MA was successful, others were not largely due to the efforts of groups like the Sons of Liberty. 

Concerned about not escalating the situation, Gage did not attempt to quash these groups and was criticized by his own men as being too lenient as a result.

 On April 18/19, 1775, Gage ordered 700 men to march to Concord to capture colonial powder and guns. En route, active fighting began at Lexington and was continued at Concord. 

Though British troops were able to clear each town, they sustained heavy casualties during their march back to Boston.

Following the fighting at Lexington and Concord, Gage found himself besieged in Boston by a growing colonial army.*

General Thomas Gage - American Revolution General Thomas Gage

Oh and just a quick aside, Boston is wonderful. I had friends I used to visit at Brandeis and they used to "take me to town". The whole region is gorgeous.


----------



## Dante

tinydancer said:


> I understand that were a myriad of reasons for the American Revolution. Of that, I have no quarrel, but many sources that I have been reading lead me to believe that Gage's intent on seizing these caches increased tensions.
> 
> Here's an example from this source. Note series of raids. I wonder now, if he'd just let sleeping dogs lie if the Revolution would have happened at all? Just a thought.
> 
> *With tensions increasing, Gage began a series of raids in September to seize colonial supplies of munitions.
> 
> While an early raid to Somerville, MA was successful, others were not largely due to the efforts of groups like the Sons of Liberty.
> 
> Concerned about not escalating the situation, Gage did not attempt to quash these groups and was criticized by his own men as being too lenient as a result.
> 
> On April 18/19, 1775, Gage ordered 700 men to march to Concord to capture colonial powder and guns. En route, active fighting began at Lexington and was continued at Concord.
> 
> Though British troops were able to clear each town, they sustained heavy casualties during their march back to Boston.
> 
> Following the fighting at Lexington and Concord, Gage found himself besieged in Boston by a growing colonial army.*
> 
> General Thomas Gage - American Revolution General Thomas Gage
> 
> Oh and just a quick aside, Boston is wonderful. I had friends I used to visit at Brandeis and they used to "take me to town". The whole region is gorgeous.





> *While an early raid to Somerville, MA was successful...* - inside joke



I grew up and played in many of the places mentioned.

This is sort of straying off topic. The American Revolution was not fought over the right to own and store guns and powder/supplies as localities wished. btw, your arguments with Gage's actions appear to not address an individual's right to bear arms...which is what the two cases you want to address were settled on


----------



## tinydancer

Dante said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's why I included the Fourteenth Amendment and it goes specifically to the recent decision by the Supreme Court . And they agree the two Amendments are tied together.
> 
> * McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___ (2010), is a landmark decision...*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It appears you are misreading the narrow focus of some cases. It is okay as this is a common error.
> 
> Infringement of rights by local governments.
> 
> The 14th came into play under an argument that Section 1, applied to the specific case out of the 7th District
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Section 1:
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To argue the two cases adequately is not so easy as it would require reading and opining on the opinions of all the Justices involved in all the cases cited.
> 
> While I agree with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) on some points made in the two cases, some parts of the rulings seem to stretch credulity.
> 
> Tiny Dancer: "Referring to the Supreme Courts decisions overturning laws in the District of Columbia and the Chicago...I agree with the Supreme Court's decisions in both cases."
> 
> I'm not sure you've adequately explained the why or how.*
Click to expand...

*

Quite simply put, the local governments had no right to infringe upon an individuals right to bear arms. 

This is why the Fourteenth Amendment is so crucial to these decisions. The Federal Government at that time had to step in to stop individual states from passing laws that infringed on the civil liberties of the Freedmen. 

Fast forward to now. 

By attempting to prevent citizens of both District of Columbia and Chicago, these local governments are breaking the law themselves.

This goes to the heart of civil liberties protected in the Fourteenth Amendment. 

 On March 5 the Senate debated the basis of representation, which became § 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Senator Samuel Pomeroy of Kansas, a supporter of the proposed amendment, stated:

    And what are the safeguards of liberty under our form of Government? There are at least, under our Constitution, three which are indispensable 

    1. Every man should have a homestead, that is, the right to acquire and hold one, and the right to be safe and protected in that citadel of his love.

    2. He should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead.

 And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, where his wretchedness will forever remain complete; and

    3. He should have the ballot

Great article here.

Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to Protect All Rights*


----------



## tinydancer

Dante said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that were a myriad of reasons for the American Revolution. Of that, I have no quarrel, but many sources that I have been reading lead me to believe that Gage's intent on seizing these caches increased tensions.
> 
> Here's an example from this source. Note series of raids. I wonder now, if he'd just let sleeping dogs lie if the Revolution would have happened at all? Just a thought.
> 
> *With tensions increasing, Gage began a series of raids in September to seize colonial supplies of munitions.
> 
> While an early raid to Somerville, MA was successful, others were not largely due to the efforts of groups like the Sons of Liberty.
> 
> Concerned about not escalating the situation, Gage did not attempt to quash these groups and was criticized by his own men as being too lenient as a result.
> 
> On April 18/19, 1775, Gage ordered 700 men to march to Concord to capture colonial powder and guns. En route, active fighting began at Lexington and was continued at Concord.
> 
> Though British troops were able to clear each town, they sustained heavy casualties during their march back to Boston.
> 
> Following the fighting at Lexington and Concord, Gage found himself besieged in Boston by a growing colonial army.*
> 
> General Thomas Gage - American Revolution General Thomas Gage
> 
> Oh and just a quick aside, Boston is wonderful. I had friends I used to visit at Brandeis and they used to "take me to town". The whole region is gorgeous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *While an early raid to Somerville, MA was successful...* - inside joke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I grew up and played in many of the places mentioned.
> 
> This is sort of straying off topic. The American Revolution was not fought over the right to own and store guns and powder/supplies as localities wished. btw, your arguments with Gage's actions appear to not address an individual's right to bear arms...which is what the two cases you want to address were settled on
Click to expand...


I'm just responding and agreeing to your opening statement that there were forms of gun/weapon/arms control preceding the American Revolution and preceding the Constitution. 

We are in complete agreement on that. Many scholars have written that British gun/weapons/arms controls in the colonies did help propel the revolution.

Great article here about British gun control in the Colonies. 

* The American Revolution against British Gun Control

By David B. Kopel*

Administrative and Regulatory Law News (American Bar Association). Vol. 37, no. 4, Summer 2012. More by Kopel on the right to arms in the Founding Era.

This Article reviews the British gun control program that precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations.

 It was these events that changed a situation of political tension into a shooting war.

 Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment. *

The American Revolution against British Gun Control

Well respected scholar. Here's a quick profile of the gentleman who wrote this piece.

** Research Director, Independence Institute, and Adjunct Professor of Advanced Constitutional Law, Denver University, Sturm College of Law. This is article is adapted from How theBritish Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution, 6 Charleston L. Rev. 283 (2012), available at How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution by David Kopel :: SSRN.*


----------



## Dante

Gun regulations are not an infringement of the right to bear arms and nowhere does any court say this. On anonymous internet forums, and on blogs by 'everyman' 'the people' we have people using the term 'infringement' so loosely as to kill any meaning it has in the Bill of Rights.

The DC case had to do with gun regulation laws as remedies for local crime reduction. The SCOTUS did not rule any local gun control/regulation is an infringement of the right to bear arms.



> Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## tinydancer

And Dante I think the closing paragraphs in his article links yesterday to today. It is the key to it all.

When I read so many posts by individuals trying to make history irrelevant with many using the phrasings that "the Second Amendment is outdated" or "has no place in today's world" I find it more than disturbing. 

And those posters are so wrong. 

The Second and the Fourteenth Amendments are front and center of America's life today. And we need them more than ever. 

As Kopel has written:

*  Laws disarming people who have proven themselves to be a particular threat to public safety are not implicated by the 1774-76 experience. In contrast, laws that aim to disarm the public at large are precisely what turned a political argument into the American Revolution.

The most important lesson for today from the Revolution is about militaristic or violent search and seizure in the name of disarmament. 

As Hurricane Katrina bore down on Louisiana, police officers in St. Charles Parish confiscated firearms from people who were attempting to flee. 

After the hurricane passed, officers went house to house in New Orleans, breaking into homes and confiscating firearms at gunpoint.

 The firearms seizures were flagrantly illegal under existing state law. A federal district judge soon issued an order against the confiscation, ordering the return of the seized guns.

When there is genuine evidence of potential dangersuch as evidence that guns are in the possession of a violent gangthen the Fourth Amendment properly allows no-knock raids, flash-bang grenades, and similar violent tactics to carry out a search. 

Conversely, if there is no real evidence of dangerfor example, if it is believed that a person who has no record of violence owns guns but has not registered them properlythen militaristically violent enforcement of a search warrant should never be allowed.

 Gun ownership simpliciter ought never to be a pretext for government violence.

 The Americans in 1775 fought a war because the king did not agree.*



The American Revolution against British Gun Control


----------



## Dante

Ruling authorities from the Old World (our societal forebears in the America's), have always regulated gun ownership...in what is now Canada, USA, and Mexico.

We have historically recognized the rights of authority to regulate guns and ammo.

In State Constitutions after the American Revolution, and later in the US Constitution we enumerate a right to own/posses guns. Nowhere in the USC do we say the government should not and cannot regulate individual ownership of guns. Infringement on the right to own guns does not negate the recognized right and duty of society, through government, to regulate guns.


and quotes from blogs where an agenda and disinformation is used are irrelevant to this discussion except in passing reference. most of what people write on history is wrong or irrelevant. Read court rulings and even some of them dismiss many of the arguments about what went on in state conventions.


----------



## tinydancer

This is why in the one link I gave it is clearly stated that the Chicago decision clarified the scope of gun ownership in regards to the states. 

* McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___ (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states.

The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.

The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.*


----------



## Dante

td, it's over


thank you
D


----------



## tinydancer

Dante said:


> Ruling authorities from the Old World (our societal forebears in the America's), have always regulated gun ownership...in what is now Canada, USA, and Mexico.
> 
> We have historically recognized the rights of authority to regulate guns and ammo.
> 
> In State Constitutions after the American Revolution, and later in the US Constitution we enumerate a right to own/posses guns. Nowhere in the USC do we say the government should not and cannot regulate individual ownership of guns. Infringement on the right to own guns does not negate the recognized right and duty of society, through government, to regulate guns.
> 
> 
> and quotes from blogs where an agenda and disinformation is used are irrelevant to this discussion except in passing reference. most of what people write on history is wrong or irrelevant. Read court rulings and even some of them dismiss many of the arguments about what went on in state conventions.



Oh Mr. Kopel is not a joe six pack blogger that I'm quoting.  And please note he's a lifelong Democrat.



*Dave Kopel is an American author, attorney, political science researcher and contributing editor to several publications.

He is currently Research Director of the Independence Institute in Golden, Colorado, Associate Policy Analyst at the Cato Institute, contributor to the National Review magazine and Volokh Conspiracy legal blog. Previously he was Adjunct Professor of Law, New York University, and Former Assistant Attorney General for Colorado.

Kopel earned a B.A. in history with highest honors from Brown University, and won the National Geographic Society Prize for best History thesis with a biography of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.

 He graduated magna cum laude from the University of Michigan Law School. He was also a contributing editor of the Michigan Law Review.

Politically he is a lifelong registered Democrat but a confessed small government libertarian at heart who voted for Ralph Nader*

Dave Kopel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## tinydancer

Dante said:


> td, it's over
> 
> 
> thank you
> D



I enjoyed myself immensely. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to express my views in a wonderfully civil manner.

yours,
td

ps I'm never ever ever going up against you in the Flame Zone though. I've seen your handiwork and it's not pretty. I keep feeling I should be calling 911 for some of the posters.


----------

