quote:

The Federalist Papers were written as arguments to favor acceptance of the proposed new Constitution. The amendment process acknowledges that the Constitution was not carved in stone and that times change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

The Second Admendment was written over 200 years ago.  Then many people live in rual area, miles from their nearst neighbor.  At that time there was not a standing army to deal with many problems i.e. Indians (how dare they attack us, we took their land),

quote:

so each community formed a militia.  Simply put an alarmed went off and every adult male grabbed their musket and off they went.  In order for all this to work everyone had to have a musket so the right to keep weapons was in created.  However, does that apply, we have a police force, each state has a National Guard. 

As you pointed out George Washington, then President, imposed a whiskey tax to help pay for the revoluation.  England was also on him for compsenation the US agreed to pay those still loyal to King George, and were forced to leave and return to England.  This debt was never fully paid. 

quote:

Another note to the Whiskey rebillion, after the stills and such were destoried and all was said and done, George himself became the US number on maker of whiskey, also a few others of the founding fathers, but George and the others never paid the tax.  George had some alternate motives when he made that speech about the 2nd Admentment.

Since then "gun control" efforts have been used, even the famous fight at the OK Corral was started partly do to a "no guns in town" policy the Earps created.  Also the Earps controled the gambling and vice in Tombstone. 

quote:

As to modern times, I have carred a firearm and owned a few.  It was part of my job requirement.  When my granddaughter came into my life, I decided to not have firearms and since then I have not owned a gun.  I do believe owning a firearm is legal, under proper conditions, ie a need for training and such.  However, I find no reason to own weapons such as automatice weapons. 

quote:

As to this "Stand your Ground Law", a 1995 Northeastern study of people using firearms in their self defense showed some 48% used a firearm against an unarmed person.  this was before the "Stand your Ground Law" was in effect, I hate to see what it is now....welcome to Dodge City.

quote:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, more like they merely have different labels and serve the same purpose that being force as he admits. constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. By the people is a LIE, if that were true we would have had referendums to VOTE on every amendment and we had NONE! Having NO SAY in the amendments is not by the people but by the attorneys put into office who have NO ACCOUNTABILITY to vote with regard to the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. THAT is why people think the governemnt does such stoopid things all the time, its 5 for them 1 for you These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

The Second Admendment was written over 200 years ago.  Then many people live in rual area, miles from their nearst neighbor.  At that time there was not a standing army to deal with many problems i.e. Indians (how dare they attack us, we took their land), so each community formed a militia.  Simply put an alarmed went off and every adult male grabbed their musket and off they went.  In order for all this to work everyone had to have a musket so the right to keep weapons was in created.  However, does that apply, we have a police force, each state has a National Guard. 

As you pointed out George Washington, then President, imposed a whiskey tax to help pay for the revoluation.  England was also on him for compsenation the US agreed to pay those still loyal to King George, and were forced to leave and return to England.  This debt was never fully paid.  Another note to the Whiskey rebillion, after the stills and such were destoried and all was said and done, George himself became the US number on maker of whiskey, also a few others of the founding fathers, but George and the others never paid the tax.  George had some alternate motives when he made that speech about the 2nd Admentment.

Since then "gun control" efforts have been used, even the famous fight at the OK Corral was started partly do to a "no guns in town" policy the Earps created.  Also the Earps controled the gambling and vice in Tombstone.  As to modern times, I have carred a firearm and owned a few.  It was part of my job requirement.  When my granddaughter came into my life, I decided to not have firearms and since then I have not owned a gun.  I do believe owning a firearm is legal, under proper conditions, ie a need for training and such.  However, I find no reason to own weapons such as automatice weapons.  As to this "Stand your Ground Law", a 1995 Northeastern study of people using firearms in their self defense showed some 48% used a firearm against an unarmed person.  this was before the "Stand your Ground Law" was in effect, I hate to see what it is now....welcome to Dodge City.

we are still supposed to have a militia in each state to this very day.

The militia was supposed to be controlled by civilians but they put it under the president creating an even larger standing army.

we have a standing army in the US with numerous bases

quote:

That may reflect the common mis-aprehension that it is legal to use deadly force on any tresspasser.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.

Read English much?

The original intent of the 2nd Amendment, explained above by the author, is indeed the prevention of tyranny.

Further, although the percentages have changed, I still am " most inclined to deny the possibility of it." (Tyranny in the United States).

Selah

quote:



The Federalist Papers were written as arguments to favor acceptance of the proposed new Constitution. The amendment process acknowledges that the Constitution was not carved in stone and that times change.

quote:



Read English much?

The original intent of the 2nd Amendment, explained above by the author, is indeed the prevention of tyranny.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

And then he formulated the scenario I quoted. It is complete unto itself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

The Second Admendment was written over 200 years ago.  Then many people live in rual area, miles from their nearst neighbor.  At that time there was not a standing army to deal with many problems i.e. Indians (how dare they attack us, we took their land),

200years ago was 1812. The standing army and navy, authorized by the constitution in 1789, was fighting the war we had declared on england.

I did say "over" 200 years ago.  Actually did not authorized a standing army at that that time.  It did allow for an Army but only in times of war.  The army disbanded after the war of over.  The provision did allow for a standing Navy due to the large merchant fleet that need protection.  It did allow for the call up of the Militia  (Section 8)

quote:

so each community formed a militia.  Simply put an alarmed went off and every adult male grabbed their musket and off they went.  In order for all this to work everyone had to have a musket so the right to keep weapons was in created.  However, does that apply, we have a police force, each state has a National Guard. 

As you pointed out George Washington, then President, imposed a whiskey tax to help pay for the revoluation.  England was also on him for compsenation the US agreed to pay those still loyal to King George, and were forced to leave and return to England.  This debt was never fully paid. 

Which was the sum and substance of the war of 1812.

quote:

Another note to the Whiskey rebillion, after the stills and such were destoried and all was said and done, George himself became the US number on maker of whiskey, also a few others of the founding fathers, but George and the others never paid the tax.  George had some alternate motives when he made that speech about the 2nd Admentment.

Since then "gun control" efforts have been used, even the famous fight at the OK Corral was started partly do to a "no guns in town" policy the Earps created.  Also the Earps controled the gambling and vice in Tombstone. 

The above while not widly known is factual.

quote:

As to modern times, I have carred a firearm and owned a few.  It was part of my job requirement.  When my granddaughter came into my life, I decided to not have firearms and since then I have not owned a gun.  I do believe owning a firearm is legal, under proper conditions, ie a need for training and such.  However, I find no reason to own weapons such as automatice weapons. 

Automatic weapons,teenage pussy and mack trucks fall into the catagory of those things that would seek to replace talent with an overabundance of enthusiam.

quote:

As to this "Stand your Ground Law", a 1995 Northeastern study of people using firearms in their self defense showed some 48% used a firearm against an unarmed person.  this was before the "Stand your Ground Law" was in effect, I hate to see what it is now....welcome to Dodge City.

That may reflect the common mis-aprehension that it is legal to use deadly force on any tresspasser.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

The Second Admendment was written over 200 years ago.  Then many people live in rual area, miles from their nearst neighbor.  At that time there was not a standing army to deal with many problems i.e. Indians (how dare they attack us, we took their land), so each community formed a militia.  Simply put an alarmed went off and every adult male grabbed their musket and off they went.  In order for all this to work everyone had to have a musket so the right to keep weapons was in created.  However, does that apply, we have a police force, each state has a National Guard. 

As you pointed out George Washington, then President, imposed a whiskey tax to help pay for the revoluation.  England was also on him for compsenation the US agreed to pay those still loyal to King George, and were forced to leave and return to England.  This debt was never fully paid.  Another note to the Whiskey rebillion, after the stills and such were destoried and all was said and done, George himself became the US number on maker of whiskey, also a few others of the founding fathers, but George and the others never paid the tax.  George had some alternate motives when he made that speech about the 2nd Admentment.

Since then "gun control" efforts have been used, even the famous fight at the OK Corral was started partly do to a "no guns in town" policy the Earps created.  Also the Earps controled the gambling and vice in Tombstone.  As to modern times, I have carred a firearm and owned a few.  It was part of my job requirement.  When my granddaughter came into my life, I decided to not have firearms and since then I have not owned a gun.  I do believe owning a firearm is legal, under proper conditions, ie a need for training and such.  However, I find no reason to own weapons such as automatice weapons.  As to this "Stand your Ground Law", a 1995 Northeastern study of people using firearms in their self defense showed some 48% used a firearm against an unarmed person.  this was before the "Stand your Ground Law" was in effect, I hate to see what it is now....welcome to Dodge City.

we are still supposed to have a militia in each state to this very day.

The militia was supposed to be controlled by civilians but they put it under the president creating an even larger standing army.

we have a standing army in the US with numerous bases

As I said, back then we had militias ..now each State has a National Guard, controled by Governor of that State.  The President can and has done in the past Nationalized the National Guard, to server with the Regular Army.  In the 70s under Carter, he created the "round off" brigade.  Each regular Army Division was made up of 3 Brigades, the 2 regular the 3rd was the national guard.  When I was serving we had over 3 Million standing, now I understand, only 1 million, regular, reservist and national guard, many bases have been closed, in California Fort Ord for one. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

That may reflect the common mis-aprehension that it is legal to use deadly force on any tresspasser.

There are many jurisdictions in this country wherein that is not a misapprehension.
(BTW, I disagree with some of those laws. My belief is that firearms should only be used to protect life/health, not property. The legislature of Texas, e.g, does not agree...)

quote:

the national gaurd is NOT the militia and was never intended to be so.

the "real" Militia is no different then the old west posse with one exception that being they had a civilian commander recognized by the gubafia and are organized.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:



Read English much?

The original intent of the 2nd Amendment, explained above by the author, is indeed the prevention of tyranny.

...of the Federal government against the worried States.

Madison uses Europe as an example, and explains why the U.S. would be different.

Read English much?

quote:

Document D: Patrick Henry’s speech at Virginia Ratification Convention – June 4, 1788
Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, the public mind, as well as my own, is extremely uneasy at the proposed change of government. Give me leave to form one of the number of those who wish to be thoroughly acquainted with the reasons of this perilous and uneasy situation, and why we are brought hither to decide on this great national question. I consider myself as the servant of the people of this commonwealth, as a sentinel over their rights, liberty, and happiness. I represent their feelings when I say that they are exceedingly uneasy at being brought from that state of full security, which they enjoyed, to the present delusive appearance of things. A year ago, the minds of our citizens were at perfect repose. Before the meeting of the late federal Convention at Philadelphia, a general peace and a universal tranquillity prevailed in this country; but, since that period, they are exceedingly uneasy and disquieted. When I wished for an appointment to this Convention, my mind was extremely agitated for the situation of public affairs. I conceived the republic to be in extreme danger. If our situation be thus uneasy, whence has arisen this fearful jeopardy? It arises from this fatal system; it arises from a proposal to change our government — a proposal that goes to the utter annihilation of the most solemn engagements of the states — a proposal of establishing nine states into a confederacy, to the eventual exclusion of four states. It goes to the annihilation of those solemn treaties we have formed with foreign nations.
… This proposal of altering our federal government is of a most alarming {22} nature! Make the best of this new government — say it is composed by any thing but inspiration — you ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forever. If a wrong step be now made, the republic may be lost forever. If this new government will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they shall be disappointed, their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise. I repeat it again, and I beg gentlemen to consider, that a wrong step, made now, will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost.
…I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states.
… The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear.
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_03.htm