STARTING A WAR 101
“About 700 British Army regulars in Boston, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were given secret orders to capture and destroy Colonial military supplies reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord.”
“The British forces began their return march to Boston after completing their search for military supplies, and more militiamen continued to arrive from the neighboring towns. Gunfire erupted again between the two sides and continued throughout the day as the regulars marched back towards Boston.”
“The combined force of about 1,700 men marched back to Boston under heavy fire in a tactical withdrawal and eventually reached the safety of Charlestown. The accumulated militias then blockaded the narrow land accesses to Charlestown and Boston, starting the siege of Boston.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord
“Barrett’s Farm had been an arsenal weeks before, but few weapons remained now, and according to family legend, these were quickly buried in furrows to look like a crop had been planted. The troops sent there did not find any supplies of consequence.”
“The regulars found themselves trapped in a situation where they were both outnumbered and outmaneuvered. Lacking effective leadership and terrified at the superior numbers of the enemy, with their spirit broken, and likely not having experienced combat before, they abandoned their wounded, and fled to the safety of the approaching grenadier companies coming from the town center, isolating Captain Parsons and the companies searching for arms at Barrett’s Farm....
“The colonists were stunned by their success. No one had actually believed either side would shoot to kill the other.”
They could sooner ban oxygen.
What are you smoking or drinking?
You are totally clueless.
Our Constitution was written to “allow for the widespread distribution and
ownership of weapons whose sole purpose is to destroy human life.”
(Among other things.)
Because history has shown that SOME “human life” thinks nothing of inflicting
evil upon the defenseless, and yet others wish to disarm those that would stop
them, or hold them accountable for their crimes against our fellow humans.
Especially dangerous to humanity are those forms of “human life” that lust
after positions of power, and lie and cheat their way into government.
~Easy
one of the major purposes for weapons is to defend ourselves AND our nation- and a person CAN NOT DO SO without weapons that are up to the task-
We are having to send the Ukraine weapons because they didn’t have enough to defend themselves- and that is obviously the exact same position the left want our own country in- unable to defend itself-
We have an inalienable right- this means a God Give Right! To defend ourselves, and also an obligation to defend this nation against all threats domestic and foreign, but we will never be able to do that if the left get their way-
The people who demand this sort of action are the people we need weapons to protect ourselves and our families from.
Make no mistake, they are coming for our families!
C’mon man. Bob’s not a bad guy. He just wants to make sure the America of the future can have Gulags, death camps, and ethnic cleansing just like Europe.
“It is now more than evident that it is very dangerous for a society to allow for the widespread distribution and ownership of weapons whose sole purpose is to destroy human life.”
OK, now explain your position on sending BILLIONS of $$$ worth of weapons to Ukraine.
Please explain your position on approx. 300,000 fully automatic machines guns and 85 BILLION dollars worth of helicopters, trucks, ammunition, night vision devices and myriad war matériel abandoned in Afghanistan.
The US government is one of the largest arms exporters around, I betcha. Anybody noticing some disconnect with these folks? They don’t seem to GAF about anybody else, despite their oft repeated claims to the contrary.
Don’t need guns anymore — got robots. Can’t wait to take my first whitetail with an AI drone.
to the author,
im 70. i aint got the kung phooey no more. will you come and defend me?
i do not think so, therefore, i can get the Samuel Colt equalizer.
It is now more than evident that it is very dangerous for a society to allow for the widespread distribution and ownership of weapons whose sole purpose is to destroy human life.
The vast majority of weapons capable of destroying human life are neither purchased with the intent to destroy human life, or ever used with the intent to destroy human life.
There is no mention in the Second Amendment about an individual right to own and bear arms.
The Second Amendment protected the pre-existing common law right to keep and bear arms. The Amendment did not define the right, but the common law did define it as an individual right to keep and bear arms.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England
Book the First - Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals (1765)
5. THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
Bruen, Opinion of the Court by Justice Thomas, slip op. at 58:
We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” 554 U. S., at 582. “Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Ibid. (citations omitted). Thus, even though the Second Amendment’s definition of “arms” is fixed according to its historical understanding, that general definition covers modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense. Cf. Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. 411, 411–412 (2016) (per curiam) (stun guns).
Id. at 58:
After holding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)). That said, we cautioned that we were not “undertak[ing] an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment” and moved on to considering the constitutionality of the District of Columbia’s handgun ban. 554 U. S., at 627.
Id. at 62:
The Second Amendment guaranteed to “all Americans” the right to bear commonly used arms in public subject to certain reasonable, well-defined restrictions. Heller, 554 U. S., at 581.
- - - - - - - - - -
The purpose of the Second Amendment was to placate those former colonies (and soon to be States), who feared the potential of a federal government acting like the King they just overthrew.
The States declared independence in 1776. They waged successful revolution and their existence as independent states was recognized dating from the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution was ratified in 1788 and Washington was inaugurated in 1789. The constitutional union was created by the states, and the states that ratified the Constitution became its members. Subsequently, the Second Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights was proposed by the Congress of the United States, and ratified by the people of the United States.
The king was overthrown in 1776. The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, fifteen years later. As such, "soon to be" states had nothing to do with it.
The bulk of the military that fought the Revolutionary War was state militias (the modern equivalent of which is the National Guard) acting under the command of federal forces.This is not dissimilar from the current structure of our military forces.
As there was no federal government, there were no federal forces involved in the Revolutionary War. There were thirteen independent states, joined in a league of friendship and cooperation.
The Article of Confederation came into force in 1781. ARticles II and III states:
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.Article III. The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.
There were state militias. The whole thing had no similarity to the current structure of our military forces. No federal military force was created.
It is self-evident that these weapons are not needed for either personal protection or for hunting.
If the hunter's first shot only makes his intended prey angry, and it is charging at the hunter, the hunter may find some utility in having a semi-auto rifle in his hands for personal protection.
The Constitution expressly allows Congress the right and authority to dictate the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
No, it does not. Article III, Section 2 sets forth the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. It does not grant Congress the authority to do other than what the Constitution states. Congress has no power to add to the stated jurisdiction of the Judiciary. It is authorized to carve out exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Judiciary.
To make sure the will of a majority of U.S. citizens are (sic - is) implemented, Congress could remove from the jurisdiction of the federal courts the ability to rule on the constitutionality of a ban of semi-automatic weapons (similar to the removal of jurisdiction over habeas corpus during the Civil War).
Congress has no authority to change anything in the Constitution, or enact any legislation repugnant thereto.
The only way to avoid minority rule is for the majority to support and vote for those representatives, at all levels of government, local, state and federal, who also share the same view of society.
This is not a Democracy where majority rules. Nothing could be clearer where the winner of the popular vote in a presidential election may not win a majority of the states' electoral votes.
The Constitution did not create a system where a majority dictates to the minority. It established a government of limited, delegated powers. Some powers were delegated to the Federal government, and the rest were reserved by the people. The people on each state decided which of their reserved powers to delegate to their state government.
The constitutionally protected freedom of expression includes expression the majority finds objectionable. It is not the freedom to state only what the majority approves.
Now is the time to make clear what kind of society we really want.
The Constitution provides for a society that enjoys freedom for all. It is designed to protect the rights of a minority against an overreaching majority. It includes the freedom for this author to say really stupid stuff.
Gun control is a front for the advancement of the socialist agenda. Giving in to the idea that guns are dangerous concedes to the notion that it is better to let some lowlife steal your property, rape your wife, and beat you half to death than it is to expedite his passage into the next world.
(Your property was all gained at his expense anyway; so, in a moral sense, he’s entitled to it as much as you are.)
That is the core of the socialist doctrine. And it is the dominant worldview of most of the industrialized world.
Absolutely false. There are many purposes for firearms (guns). The termination of life for one or a few malevolent lives using instruments of physical incapacitation and/or death is the safety, preservation, and extension of the lives and property of a plurality of others. That is what 2nd Amndt is about.
Let him try it
You are insane
It is the citizens right to be able to protect himself from the government
Leftists want you disarmed so they can exterminate you and I by the millions. These are the same people that demand the right to murder babies, folks.
See???! All they want to ban, are semi-automatic firearms. And lever-action. And pump-action. And revolvers. And single-shot. And break-open actions. And muzzle-loaders. And lead. And gunpowder. And all forms of metal. And people. And rocks. And sticks. And the planet Earth. And the solar system. And the galaxy. And the universe. And God.
I mean, be REASONABLE. This is COMMON SENSE.
It is now more than evident that it is very dangerous for a society to forbid the widespread distribution and ownership of weapons whose sole purpose is to destroy human life.
A true ‘close the door after the horse is out’ suggestion.