12-year-old's gun control perspective

[G-Man]

My politically active daughter came home for spring break and at the table last night we spoke about the "black" gun ban.  Now, even though the lame stream media eventually revealed that the Sandy Hook thing happened via the use of hand guns, she still thought he used a semi-auto "assault" weapon.  After explaining that THAT was the intent, that everyone was made to believe it was a semi-a weapon in order to go after them and ban them.

Then it happened, my otherwise bored 12-year-old, with his glazed over eyes, says: "How can banning just one kind of a thing stop anything from happening?"

An enormous wave of pride came over me.  My son, the child whose diapers I changed, who I throw the ball and shoot jumpshots with, the joy of my life, figured out what more than half of the country still can't. 

[9Ball]

You should buy her an NRA membership....that's what I did for my kids.

[Serk]

I commend her reason and logic, and your raising of her the right way, and even though it's not an Assault weapon, an AR-15 WAS the primary weapon used in that tragedy.


Source - CT state police:

http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284

[Oss]

You done good raising them Gary   

[FLAVALK]

She's certainly smarter than Chucky Schumer...wait, that's not saying much.... never mind   

[PAVALKER]

G-Man,    You do realize that it was in fact the AR15 that was used on the kids and the handgun was used, I believe by Lanza, to take his own life right?   

I will agree that the Lame Stream Media really screwed the pouch on the reporting of this event, and that little video snipped by NBC reportied DURING the initial reporting of the event, that the AR was not used was INCORRECT.  I believe the facts are that the AR was used, the shotgun was left in the trunk and he had the AR and 2 Pistols on him.   

Not that I have anything against AR's, Revolvers, Semi-Auto handguns, or even Fully Automatic weapons, etc (I think everyone needs at least one of each).   But I do have issue with the facts not being reported correctly and then people using these inaccurate facts over and over since they are readily available on the internet.   

[bscrive]

"How can banning just one kind of a thing stop anything from happening?"

That is why your gov't will eventually try to ban most guns out there.  If they had it there way you guys would only have muskets, probably.  That is your right under the second amendment, as long as you are in a militia.

Now I have gone and stirred the pot.  Flame suit on.   

[Jess Tolbirt]

"How can banning just one kind of a thing stop anything from happening?"

That is why your gov't will eventually try to ban most guns out there.  If they had it there way you guys would only have muskets, probably.  That is your right under the second amendment, as long as you are in a militia.

Now I have gone and stirred the pot.  Flame suit on.   

this is what it says,,A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
the correct interpretation is as follows,
you dont have to be a militia to have the right to bear arms,,what it means is you have the right to bear arms so you can have a well regulated militia..

[bigguy]

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason - Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the constitution, 1788

Here's a guy who knows a little bit about the Second Amendment.

[Detn8er]

"That is why your gov't will eventually try to ban most guns out there."


          As much as you apparently wish this will never happen.

[bigguy]

Saw this shirt for sale on FB:

[Patrick]

G-Man, I commend your son for that observation.

[.]

"How can banning just one kind of a thing stop anything from happening?"

That is why your gov't will eventually try to ban most guns out there.  If they had it there way you guys would only have muskets, probably.  That is your right under the second amendment, as long as you are in a militia.

Now I have gone and stirred the pot.  Flame suit on.  

I know what follows is a bit lengthy. But, as a guy who used to write editorials, opinion, and commentary for a living, I've learned that complex issues don't lend themselves well to sound bites. Unfortunately, many of them don't lend themselves well to solutions either, be they simple or complex. You've been warned. Read on if you dare. If you need me I'll be in my flame suit:

LOL. No flames here. Just an observation. And no, I'm not in favor of banning gun ownership but I also don't believe the Second Amendment is an absolute right or that limits on weaponry in the hands of the general population are part of a nefarious plot by the feds to subjugate the whole country.

But, for the sake of discussion, let's consider that the most dedicated defenders of the Second Amendment are correct; that it is an absolute right and that the government is intent upon rounding up the guns and enslaving the people in order to further the interests of whatever entity that wishes the many to be pressed into service for the benefit of the few (or any other reason for that matter).

If that's the case then we should all be looking for other places to be because it's already over. There are nine other amendments in the Bill of Rights, and virtually all of them are being eroded away with barely any notice and some are ignored altogether. In fact, the Second Amendment is probably the STRONGEST amendment in force and it is very unlikely that any serious attempt to place limits on it will be successful. But those other nine.

Let's look at it this way. Right now, I can lay in an arsenal of some of the most sophisticated small arms on the market with almost no limit to the amount of ammunition I can amass (other than economic-fear is driving prices through the roof) and if I want a hundred military style semi-automatic weapons with a hundred 15, 30, 50 or even 100 round magazines, I can probably get all of that with little problem so long as I can scrape up the cash-and never be in violation of the law. Sure, there have been occasional attempts to limit this or that or to introduce more paperwork but none of that has ever been something that didn't come with a legal loophole enabling folks to avoid the more unpleasant or intrusive aspect of purchasing weaponry.

What I can get is irrelevant when you consider what I cannot get. I cannot get access to even one drone, not one F-16, not a single nuclear warhead-much less a delivery device, not a tank, not a rocket launcher, not even a single crappy old cruise missle. But, if the ones screaming the loudest about the sanctity of the Second Amendment are correct and the government truly is bent upon destroying our freedoms, guns are the last thing they will come after and until they do, we'll be able to get all we want. Until the other nine amendments are dead and buried while all eyes are upon the Second Amendment. And at that time-we may as well be armed with muskets. Because everything we cannot get, the government already has trillions of dollars worth along with people well trained in their use.

I'm not saying Second Amendment proponents are wrong. Not at all. I'm saying I truly HOPE they are wrong. Because if they aren't then it's game over and the only unknown is when will the hammer drop.

Bear in mind that this is my opinion and my opinion only. If you agree with it-fine. If you don't agree with it-also fine. Actually, this is my opinion but that doesn't mean I like it, only that I'm afraid it may be a likely scenario based upon what I see happening around the country. I don't question your right to own as many firearms as you can gather but I also don't want to see one of my children get blown away because he picked the wrong night to go to the wrong movie and I honestly have no idea how to reconcile those two thoughts. I also know that if all gun ownership were to be outlawed today, there would be just as many guns in the country tomorrow, they'd just be a little harder to find.

But I do not question your right to own firearms. I think sometimes opinions on just what the Second Amendment specifies are a little out there, especially when considering that those who crafted the Bill of Rights were not in total accord themselves as to what it should mean-and they were there. BUT-if the worst predictions are true, once the other nine are rendered meaningless, those who are willing to die in defense of the Second Amendment will, but they'll be able to go out shooting. Which doesn't mean a whole lot to a guy piloting a drone from a thousand miles away.

I'm not flaming any poster here or anyone who thinks we must arm ourselves to the teeth to protect ourselves from the government. Far from it. I'm just really, really hoping you are wrong.

Damn, that looks pessimistic. Hopefully, from watching how Congress works these days, we won't have to worry about any of this since the government appears to be incapable of organizing a trip to the grocery store, much less enslaving the whole of the U.S. population.

[Willow]

I'm a simple man.  I tend to believe that words mean what they mean (with apologies to all my attorney friends).

Second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Definition of infringe (a verb):

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

(I used the Oxford English Dictionary as I believe that to likely be the closest to the meaning held at the time the amendment was authored.)

I cannot understand how anyone in valid logic can read those two items and pretend that it doesn't say that any restriction on the private ownership of arms of any type shall be a violation of the constitution.

I can easily understand how some with reasonable perspective could argue that in today's world that law needs to be amended or otherwise changed, but to pretend it doesn't say what it does makes no sense to me.

[Detn8er]

I'm a simple man.  I tend to believe that words mean what they mean (with apologies to all my attorney friends).

Second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Definition of infringe (a verb):

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

(I used the Oxford English Dictionary as I believe that to likely be the closest to the meaning held at the time the amendment was authored.)

I cannot understand how anyone in valid logic can read those two items and pretend that it doesn't say that any restriction on the private ownership of arms of any type shall be a violation of the constitution.

I can easily understand how some with reasonable perspective could argue that in today's world that law needs to be amended or otherwise changed, but to pretend it doesn't say what it does makes no sense to me.

 

[Karen]

Gary, great job on the development of the thought processes of both your kids; too bad our elected/hijacked officials can't figure this out for themselves, and are unwilling to listen to those that have.

[bscrive]

I liked your response Jesse. The only problem with it is the last sentence.  If you believe that, then you must then agree with Obama that your constitution is a 'living' document.  Otherwise, if it is not, then the only 'arms' you guys are allowed under your second amendment are muskets since they are what were in use at the time of the signing of your second amendment.

Thats how I see it.  You guys may not but, I think that is how your gov't may see it as well.  Also, bullets were not invented back then so I don't see how they would be protected under your second amendment.  I heard that your gov't may require you guys to get a licence to buy bullets.

[MP]

I liked your response Jesse. The only problem with it is the last sentence.  If you believe that, then you must then agree with Obama that your constitution is a 'living' document.  Otherwise, if it is not, then the only 'arms' you guys are allowed under your second amendment are muskets since they are what were in use at the time of the signing of your second amendment.

Thats how I see it.  You guys may not but, I think that is how your gov't may see it as well.  Also, bullets were not invented back then so I don't see how they would be protected under your second amendment.  I heard that your gov't may require you guys to get a licence to buy bullets.

Well then, by your reasoning, free speech would only apply to newspapers, because all the electronic media was not around.  Silly.

We would only be allowed to vote by paper, as no electronic machines had been invented.

Oops, forgot you have no free speech up there.  My bad.

[Jess from VA]

I liked your response Jesse. The only problem with it is the last sentence.  If you believe that, then you must then agree with Obama that your constitution is a 'living' document.  Otherwise, if it is not, then the only 'arms' you guys are allowed under your second amendment are muskets since they are what were in use at the time of the signing of your second amendment.

Thats how I see it.  You guys may not but, I think that is how your gov't may see it as well.  Also, bullets were not invented back then so I don't see how they would be protected under your second amendment.  I heard that your gov't may require you guys to get a license to buy bullets.

Well, BS there is a difference between the idea of a living document as you are referring to.... interpreting the Constitution in an expansionist way to increase federal power, or just making crap up, and what we call strict construtionism (it means what it says and no more).  

But the founders knew the Constitution would have to be interpreted over time, and created the federal courts and Supreme Court to do so.  And they interpret the Constitution by reading the founders significant publications/writings at the time, and recorded history of the constitutional conventions (and other things).  

The 2dA does not say anything about types of firearms, but it does say 1) the right shall not be infringed (with no stated exceptions), and 2) that it exists to ensure a Militia which is necessary to the security of a free State.  Every citizen (they intended men only) from 14-80 is the militia.  It is not today's National Guard, which did not exist back then (which you often hear and is complete crap).

It would not be a radical expansionist view that the arms referred to were those in existence at the time, and would be the best that money could buy or you could make from then on.  Interpreting that to include ever more modern firearms is not expansionist or making crap up, it is exactly what the founder's intended.  

Simply put, how could the citizenry of the Country possibly ensure the security and continued existence of a free state with nothing but muzzle loaders, today?  Every freaking founder of our republic, by his words and writings and deeds, would answer that in the negative.  It would make no sense whatsoever.  But it would take an expansionist (of federal power), wacko view to argue that only muzzle loaders is what the founders intended for the next two centuries.

Arms is neither defined, but reasonably interpreted to mean individual small arms (infantry weapons, rifles and handguns).  It did not mention cannon (artillery) or horses or ships, which also existed at that time, so it would be consistent to exclude nukes, rockets, planes, explosives, boats, tanks, artillery, mortars, and crap too big to be carried by one man.  There is nothing expansionist about this interpretation either, quite the reverse, considering how much more weaponry has been developed since 1800.

Bullets were indeed invented back then (actually a long time before then): they were lead balls propelled by powder.  Metallic cartridges (together with modern smokeless powder) came along in the 1800s, and in common military use by the turn of the century 1900.  Protection for ammunition for the arms referred to in the 2dA must be presumed, for who would guarantee a right to unloaded arms to their citizens?.  As for the arms themselves, the correspondingly improved-over-time ammunition is certainly protected by the 2dA as well.

Now the G is allowed to tax (licenses are a tax) about anything in interstate commerce (there's that expansionist view crap again), but a tax that went high enough to become an infringement of the right to keep/bear arms and ammunition would be unconstitutional.  And the courts would be bound/required to consider the absolute poorest of the citizenry (under the equal protection clause), when deciding how high a tax could be before it became an infringement of the 2dA.

These interpretations of the Constitution are logical and common sense and strictly what the founders intended, not expansionist or made up crap.

However, we do have to be wary of our Federal (and State) Judges in the continuing fight.  Some are liars (who make crap up) appointed by liars and not to be trusted to follow their oaths of office, just like many of our elected officials.    

[alph]

How come, when people "read" the constitution, and they come to the second amendment, they only remember the last part?  Why doesn't anyone actually read the first part of it?  Doesn't anyone actually see the words "REGULATED"?  does anyone understand what that means?  What do you think it means?  How do you "regulate" anything? If something is "regulated" doesn't it actually have RESTRICTIONS!!

here's a copy of the second ammendment;

As passed by the Congress:


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[RP#62]

From Parker v. District of Columbia:

"On March 9, 2007, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Colombia Circuit voted two-to-one to strike down parts of the law as unconstitutional (Shelly Parker, et al. v. District of Columbia, 478 F3d 370, D.C. Cir. 2007). The Court ruled that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms" and that "once it is determined—as we have done—that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them." The Court concluded that:

the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia (id.at p. 395).

The ruling made it the first federal appeals court to strike down a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds. "

The full court ruling is an interesting read as it explores the meaning of every word in the second amendment.
-RP

[MP]

How come, when people "read" the constitution, and they come to the second amendment, they only remember the last part?  Why doesn't anyone actually read the first part of it?  Doesn't anyone actually see the words "REGULATED"?  does anyone understand what that means?  What do you think it means?  How do you "regulate" anything? If something is "regulated" doesn't it actually have RESTRICTIONS!!

here's a copy of the second ammendment;

As passed by the Congress:


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In the meaning of the day, the word "Well Regulated" meant "Well Trained", or ordered , or prepared.  Word meanings drift over time.

It did not mean "Restricted".  Put restricted in the sentence, and it makes no sense.

MP

MP

[bscrive]

I liked your response Jesse. The only problem with it is the last sentence.  If you believe that, then you must then agree with Obama that your constitution is a 'living' document.  Otherwise, if it is not, then the only 'arms' you guys are allowed under your second amendment are muskets since they are what were in use at the time of the signing of your second amendment.

Thats how I see it.  You guys may not but, I think that is how your gov't may see it as well.  Also, bullets were not invented back then so I don't see how they would be protected under your second amendment.  I heard that your gov't may require you guys to get a licence to buy bullets.

Well then, by your reasoning, free speech would only apply to newspapers, because all the electronic media was not around.  Silly.

We would only be allowed to vote by paper, as no electronic machines had been invented.

Oops, forgot you have no free speech up there.  My bad.

It is not my reasoning but wondering about a lot of your reasoning.  If the Supreme court does not rule on updates for the Constitution then the Constitution has to be taken as is was written.  Your Supreme court could rule someday that 'arms' mean muskets.  What would you do then?  I can see Obama trying to do this.

I have a question and I am being serious.  What happens if someone creates a laser handgun or rifle that can be carried by a single individual, same size as a 38 revolver lets say.  Is it covered under your Second Amendment.  What if this gun can destroy whole buildings or blocks of buildings?  Far fetched you say....about as far fetched as the weapons we have today if you lived 237 years ago?

MP I guess you don't know much about Canada MP to make a statement like that.  Canada has free speech, it is in our Constitution but you would not know anything about that because I doubt you could pick out where Canada is on a globe let alone know what is in our Constitution.  There are always limits on rights though, just like your Second Amendment.

[Varmintmist]

How come, when people "read" the constitution, and they come to the second amendment, they only remember the last part?  Why doesn't anyone actually read the first part of it?  Doesn't anyone actually see the words "REGULATED"?  does anyone understand what that means?  What do you think it means?  How do you "regulate" anything? If something is "regulated" doesn't it actually have RESTRICTIONS!!

here's a copy of the second ammendment;

As passed by the Congress:


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

We do read it, and we know that "regulated" in late 1700's speak meant something different than government controlled. That is how we know that the 2A means what it says.

This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

[Varmintmist]

It is not my reasoning but wondering about a lot of your reasoning.  If the Supreme court does not rule on updates for the Constitution then the Constitution has to be taken as is was written.  Your Supreme court could rule someday that 'arms' mean muskets.  What would you do then?  I can see Obama trying to do this.

Because that was decided a long time ago. In the 1939 Miller case, it was decided that a sawed off shotgun was NOT a ordinary military arm so it wasnt covered. If that is the case, then "ordinary military arms" ARE the ONLY things covered by the 2A. That means a 30-30 is not covered, but a 30-06 is. A AR-15 and AK-47 are, but a over and under shoutgun isn't.

I have a question and I am being serious.  What happens if someone creates a laser handgun or rifle that can be carried by a single individual, same size as a 38 revolver lets say.  Is it covered under your Second Amendment.  What if this gun can destroy whole buildings or blocks of buildings?  Far fetched you say....about as far fetched as the weapons we have today if you lived 237 years ago?

If it is a ordinary military arm, then yes, a person can have one.

[.]

I've got just a couple of observations.

One is that the Second Amendment is either an absolute right or it isn't and saying it is one doesn't automatically make it so but doesn't automatically make it the other either. There is evidence, however, that the Second Amendment is not an absolute right-that evidence being the other nine amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. Some of those rights no longer exist anywhere in this country outside of the wording of the Constitution, others of those rights are relative in their absolutism depending upon how they are applied and who is applying them, and of the entirety of the Bill of Rights the most strongly defended and (at this point) most secure seems to be Amendment Two. If there is truly an effort underway to enslave the masses, a very effective way would be to allow Amendment Two to continue dominating people's attention, make an occasional jab at it to make sure people's attention doesn't wander, and continue to undermine the pillars that support all of the collective rights of the people-those pillars being the rest of the Constitution including the other nine amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.

Also, I haven't seen it pointed out that the "well regulated militia" referred to in Amendment Two was what the brand new U.S. had in place of a standing army. The Constitution not only did not provide for maintenance of a professional army but actually placed a huge barrier to the establishment of one. Originally, appropriations for an army could only be made two years at a time, which made the establishment of a permanent, professional army impossible. This was not an accident or an oversight. A standing, professional military organization has always been the enforcement arm of tyrants since the dawn of history. Amendment Two was the mechanism by which a force of arms could be mustered to face invasion or insurrection in the face of having no ability to keep a permanent army. Amendment Three is evidence that the framers of the Constitution didn't believe reliance on a citizen militia would continue in perpetuity and thus wanted additional protection against military incursions by a future U.S. Army inside the borders of the U.S. itself.

One of the first practical uses of the "well regulated militia" was suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791, in which 13,000 militiamen from four states where led to Western Pennsylvania by President Washington himself to enforce a federal tax on corn.

Part of what I am saying is from beliefs I have formed through what I have been able to learn about the issue but part of what I am saying is firmly rooted in historical events. The way the Constitution was framed, the country originally structured, and the actions of the early leaders of the country leads me to believe the Second Amendment intent was to ensure adequate protection of the nation from invasion or insurrection. It is the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights that are intended to shield the citizens of this nation from government aggression turned inward.

I am a firm believer in the Second Amendment as well as a firm believer in the other nine amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. I am also of the opinion that times are very, very different since the Constitution was written and if there is any nefarious plot on the part of the federal government to enslave citizens of the U.S. to any degree, it didn't start with Obama and won't end with him either. Erosion, whether of rights, institutions, buildings or beaches is a process that pointing fingers or calling names won't even slow down much less stop. It actually only entertains some people and pisses some others off while the process continues but the process will continue regardless of who is entertained or who is pissed off. 

I don't know if I have stated my position well but that's usually the case with hot button issues. There's always another point that can be made but sometimes in the heat of discussion it's hard to tell if the point should be made. Kind of like religion or helmet laws. And in discussions such as those as well I will state my opinion as my opinion and whether or not others agree is immaterial. I'm not out to convince anyone that I'm right because my opinion is like any other in that I am not infallible and additional information is always coming in.

We inherited a world we didn't create from our parents and in turn will leave to our children a world they didn't create. Whether we place it in their hands better or worse is entirely up to us but hopefully we will make some good decisions because our heirs will also be the ones who pick out our nursing homes.

Good discussion and some very interesting points made.

[Varmintmist]

Your assumption that 2A is only for outside incursions is incorrect.

This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army.

This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights

As to placing our rights in a list of most important, to least important, I am kind of with you. The right to have property is IMHO the MOST important of all. If you cant own property, you dont have a place to speak, you can be told by a property owner that you can't bring a firearm on his property, because your righs  stop where his begin.

[Varmintmist]

One of the first practical uses of the "well regulated militia" was suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791, in which 13,000 militiamen from four states where led to Western Pennsylvania by President Washington himself to enforce a federal tax on corn.

FYI, it wasnt a tax on corn. It was a tax on distilled products. There was no tax on wine that the city people drank, but they foisted a tax on whiskey on the frontier. The PA Scot-Irish were making booze from rye at the time and when they "lost" the whiskey rebellion, everyone was pardoned who had not already been aquitted and they were given land TN and Kentuk. They took their stills and rifles which is why you have Kentucky long rifles and Tennesee whiskey.


Another tidbit, it was Robert E. Lees father, Gen. Harry Reed that led the force into Western PA to seal federal power over the states. One of the reasons that "the war of northern aggression argument falls kind of flat.

[MP]

I liked your response Jesse. The only problem with it is the last sentence.  If you believe that, then you must then agree with Obama that your constitution is a 'living' document.  Otherwise, if it is not, then the only 'arms' you guys are allowed under your second amendment are muskets since they are what were in use at the time of the signing of your second amendment.

Thats how I see it.  You guys may not but, I think that is how your gov't may see it as well.  Also, bullets were not invented back then so I don't see how they would be protected under your second amendment.  I heard that your gov't may require you guys to get a licence to buy bullets.

Well then, by your reasoning, free speech would only apply to newspapers, because all the electronic media was not around.  Silly.

We would only be allowed to vote by paper, as no electronic machines had been invented.

Oops, forgot you have no free speech up there.  My bad.

MP I guess you don't know much about Canada MP to make a statement like that.  Canada has free speech, it is in our Constitution but you would not know anything about that because I doubt you could pick out where Canada is on a globe let alone know what is in our Constitution.  There are always limits on rights though, just like your Second Amendment.

If I make a statement in Canada the Muslims are bad, I can go to jail.  You have very severe limits on free speech.

From Wikipedia:
Under section 318 of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is illegal to promote genocide. Under section 319, it is illegal to publicly incite hatred against people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation, except where the statements made are true or are made in good faith. The prohibition against inciting hatred based on sexual orientation was added to the section in 2004 with the passage of Bill C-250.
Canada has had a string of high-profile court cases in which writers and publishers have been prosecuted for their writings, in both magazines and web postings:

A Montreal neo-Nazi, Jean-Sebastien Presseault, received a six-month prison sentence for willfully promoting hatred toward blacks and Jews on his website. Calling Presseault's opinions "vile" and "nauseating," Quebec Court Judge Martin Vauclair sent the heavily tattooed man back to jail. The 24 tattoos, including several Ku Klux Klan and Nazi symbols covering the defendant's torso, figure prominently in Vauclair's decision to give jail time, as opposed to a sentence to be served in the community, as the defence had hoped. "The violence he inflicted on his own body to leave almost-indelible marks of his convictions testify as to his unresolved frustrations but also to his deep-seated racist and hateful beliefs," Vauclair said.[105]
[edit]


Sorry, I do not know where Canada is.  They did not teach that here in North Dakota.  What country is Regina and Saskatoon in?  I have been in both a number of times, getting farm implement parts.  Must of forgotten what country though!  LOL

Why is it you can butt in here in our internal affairs, but as soon as one of us says ANYTHING about Canada, you get all defensive and on your high horse?

Butt out.  I have NEVER made statements about your internal politics, so why do you NEED to criticize ours?

You twist our constitution all around, then attack us if we say anything about yours?

Canada is a great country. I love going there.  But, I do not go on your forums, and tell you what to do, and how to interpert your constitution, so please, let us have our own squables!  LOL  Thank you.

MP

[bscrive]

Like I said MP.  There are limits to any rights.  You also don't realize that Quebec has their own set of rules that they follow.  They have more stringent laws then any other province or territory.

[Varmintmist]

Like I said MP.  There are limits to any rights. 

Then they are not really rights. The only limit is yours stop where anothers start. Thus you cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theater because you are putting others at risk. You can stand on property you own and spout any immoral, racist, lies that you want to, up until you do specific harm to another.

[Hoser]

"MP I guess you don't know much about Canada MP to make a statement like that.  Canada has free speech, it is in our Constitution but you would not know anything about that because I doubt you could pick out where Canada is on a globe let alone know what is in our Constitution.  There are always limits on rights though, just like your Second Amendment."  Well, I assume MP knows where Canada is due to his proximity to it.  As for myself, I have enough knowledge of it's location to not go there, which is pretty important to me.  Kind of makes it difficult to get to Alaska, but I'll manage if I ever go there.  Hoser    

[.]

One of the first practical uses of the "well regulated militia" was suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791, in which 13,000 militiamen from four states where led to Western Pennsylvania by President Washington himself to enforce a federal tax on corn.

FYI, it wasnt a tax on corn. It was a tax on distilled products. There was no tax on wine that the city people drank, but they foisted a tax on whiskey on the frontier. The PA Scot-Irish were making booze from rye at the time and when they "lost" the whiskey rebellion, everyone was pardoned who had not already been aquitted and they were given land TN and Kentuk. They took their stills and rifles which is why you have Kentucky long rifles and Tennesee whiskey.


Another tidbit, it was Robert E. Lees father, Gen. Harry Reed that led the force into Western PA to seal federal power over the states. One of the reasons that "the war of northern aggression argument falls kind of flat.

Got me on that one, Varmintmist. Good catch. And even though all my life I've heard of Tennessee Whiskey and Kentucky Long Rifles, I had no idea that was the origin of the terms.

I'll get you on this one though: It was actually General Henry Lee rather than Harry Reed, although he was known to his buds as "Light Horse Harry" Lee, who was in charge of the militia as well as the papa of his better-known offspring; Marse Lee. I think he was a mere slip of a Lt. Col. in the Continental Army at the time of the incursion, at which time the 500 or so whisky rebels, making a well-considered decision that discretion truly IS the better part of valor, declined to attend the ball, leaving their 13,000 escorts to seek among themselves to find suitable dance partners (thus coining the well-used refrain: "Run, run, run away, and make that whisky in another state" or something like that).