An interesting thing happened in DC last year

[dahermit]

"A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Does anyone notice that there is no acknowledgment that during the time this was written there was still a danger of Indian attack on the long unsettled frontier of our country (Kentucky, Ohio valley, etc.)? It was common practice to go armed in those areas or to at least have a loaded arm close at hand. Yet the constitution does not mention going armed as protection from highwaymen or Indians. Why do you think that is? Could it be that the practice of being armed was so wide spread and common that it was considered a natural state and assumed that it would always be so and that it need not be written in the constitution because it was just an accepted norm? I think that is so. And in that context, going armed should be an accepted right of every adult American without back ground checks, permits, licensing (there were none of these in the late 1700's).
Be it known that I am except for a few issues, a liberal.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

"A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Does anyone notice that there is no acknowledgment that during the time this was written there was still a danger of Indian attack on the long unsettled frontier of our country (Kentucky, Ohio valley, etc.)? It was common practice to go armed in those areas or to at least have a loaded arm close at hand. Yet the constitution does not mention going armed as protection from highwaymen or Indians. Why do you think that is? Could it be that the practice of being armed was so wide spread and common that it was considered a natural state and assumed that it would always be so and that it need not be written in the constitution because it was just an accepted norm? I think that is so. And in that context, going armed should be an accepted right of every adult American without back ground checks, permits, licensing (there were none of these in the late 1700's).
Be it known that I am except for a few issues, a liberal.

Well, that certainly is a walk down memory lane into the 1700's but could we slow down and take a good hard look at that picturesque scenery and examine the neighborhood...just exactly where are all of the law enforcement people that weren't around back then {per any given settlement or homestead} and let's not speak of the other dangers that one would need a weapon for: rabid animals, snakes, feeding ones family...Say MARSHAL DILLION just where were you when this country was so young???

Oh, that's right we were self governed and the 'need' to be armed was the basis for the gun laws at that time {or the lack there of}, at that place, at that point in our history!

So I ask you...can we really continue to believe that our founding fathers fully understood exactly what those words written with such sincerity would have such an impact upon today's society? Frankly, I sincerely doubt it

 

[Gipper]

Well, one would think that an ideal that wants the workers to unite and overthrow the ruling class would require the workers to have weapons. Its just common sense.

Well okay. And, they intend to murder everyone that gets in their way.

For example, like this scumbag...

 

[dahermit]

Well, that certainly is a walk down memory lane into the 1700's but could we slow down and take a good hard look at that picturesque scenery and examine the neighborhood...just exactly where are all of the law enforcement people that weren't around back then {per any given settlement or homestead} and let's not speak of the other dangers that one would need a weapon for: rabid animals, snakes, feeding ones family...Say MARSHAL DILLION just where were you when this country was so young???

Oh, that's right we were self governed and the 'need' to be armed was the basis for the gun laws at that time {or the lack there of}, at that place, at that point in our history!

So I ask you...can we really continue to believe that our founding fathers fully understood exactly what those words written with such sincerity would have such an impact upon today's society? Frankly, I sincerely doubt it

If you can accept the fact that guns were needed "then" because of the danger; I would like to point out that in many neighborhoods (New Orleans, Detroit, various housing projects) a person today is in as much as, or in more danger of being murdered than they are today. When the hurricane hit in New Orleans the media reported that almost all of the police abandoned their posts and people had to fend for them selves. Also, you do not hear much about the public gang rapes that took place in the sports stadium do you?

Your first paragraph is unclear as to its meaning. It would be beneficial to the rest of us if you would read it over carefully and be more concise as to its somewhat nebulous meaning

 

[Pandora]

Well okay. And, they intend to murder everyone that gets in their way.

For example, like this scumbag...

I did not realize how bad this guy was till I saw the interview with the families of those he killed.

I almost cant wait to see the next idiot in a tshirt sporting his face so I can ask them if they know.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Well okay. And, they intend to murder everyone that gets in their way.

For example, like this scumbag...

Could you please give one reason why I would support a mad stalinist assassin who is a corporate icon used to give billions of dollars to capitalists using souveniers and t-shirts?

By the way, murdering those who get in the way reminds me of something. Like the american-led invasions of Hondorus, El Salvador, and Nicauraugua in which thousands of innocents were massacred by CIA death squads in order to install a dictator who was giving Carter and Reagan money.

 

[Gipper]

Could you please give one reason why I would support a mad stalinist assassin who is a corporate icon used to give billions of dollars to capitalists using souveniers and t-shirts?

By the way, murdering those who get in the way reminds me of something. Like the american-led invasions of Hondorus, El Salvador, and Nicauraugua in which thousands of innocents were massacred by CIA death squads in order to install a dictator who was giving Carter and Reagan money.

We do agree on Che. At least the part about him being a mad Stalinist assassin.

But, those American invasions were to stop a Soviet take over of C. America. We have no troops there now unlike the Soviets who never left their occupied nations until Reagan ended their reign of terror. I guess you would prefer the Soviets enslaving the populations there rather than their current democratic governments.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

We do agree on Che. At least the part about him being a mad Stalinist assassin.

But, those American invasions were to stop a Soviet take over of C. America. We have no troops there now unlike the Soviets who never left their occupied nations until Reagan ended their reign of terror. I guess you would prefer the Soviets enslaving the populations there rather than their current democratic governments.

The Soviet Union itself sent no troops to the americas since the Cuban Missile Crisis. All the Central American revolutionary troops were made out of central americans with no support from the Eastern Bloc. Most of these were not even Communist armys, but just people who wanted the super-powers[including the USSR] to stay away from them and who wanted the dictators out. And you base your argument on the false belief that I support the USSR. I do not. They were not communists, but practised a form of authoritarian socialism known as Bolshevism. Even they themselves said that. Not ever was the Bolshevik Party called a Communist Party. Stalin called himself a socialist. The USSR was no different than the US in foriegn policy, in rhetoric, in manners of control, or in government types. Both are known as Oligarchys. And the current governments of all American controlled and supported governments are republics, which is different than Democracy[rule of the people]. Republic means rule of law.