http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/peopleevents/pande22.htmlThis is what the founders did when Alexander Hamilton, in order to pay for debt accrued by the colonies during the revolution, put a tax on whiskey and the first anti tax lobby rose up in protest. It was called the Whiskey Rebellion.and btw, Dr. Canuck…in regard to your comment under Drew Litton’s hockey editorial….I don’t believe a Canadian can be considered an objective voice where hockey is concerned. (insert evil grin here)Oh…and I was also surprised to discover your country has its own Strategic Reserve…of Maple Syrup. That’s awesome. The Waffle and Pancake eaters of America will praise the foresight of our Northern Neighbor.Being a REAL southerner, I prefer biscuits with butter and molasses or honey and a side of good ol’ grits. When my diet permits./sighwistfully,C.
I am comfortable with the thought that our forefathers were true statesman who, having a standing army, would not tolerate the excessive death by gunfire of today’s America. If you want quotes how about: " I am sorry to inform you that your _____ has been killed." Repeat ad nauseam.
Harley thinks that the idea that fire should be regulated is really funny. He’s obviously never designed a building. Fire is regulated a lot more than firearms are. Outdoor fires were banned for about six months in most Western states last year because it was the hottest year on record and thousands of famlies lost their homes to drought and climate change.
We will always regulate arms — unless you’re one of those who think it’s fine for Iran to get a nuclear bomb. It’s a question of where you draw the line. How many people should you be allowed to kill at one go? Conservatives try to pretend that arms control is an absolute: ALL weapons or NO weapons, in hopes that they can prevent the line from being redrawn more rationally. It’s time to start ignoring them.
Doc; you’re probably well aware the founding fathers weren’t too sure the Frenchies wouldn’t try coming south from your area either, or north from that territory we later bought from them to end that end.
Clown, at least until sepsis set in, a musket ball of the day was pretty benign compared to the damage a saber, tomahawk, bayonet, or even a mace could do.That’s why duels were fought with pistols, as being a more “survivable” way to settle an argument, Hamilton not withstanding.
Also, when NRA and “gun nuts” finally recognize the first sentence of the Second Amendment, not the last, and recognize that the Articles of Confederation called for all those “arms” to be strictly controlled by THE STATE until needed to repel INVASION, or REBELLION, they MIGHT show they know history, and what the actual intent of the amendment was. It did NOT, EVER, suggest that rising against a democratically elected government, in a republic, not a monarchy, was intended, or valid. Trying to tie the founders words, and “quotes” (out of context) to overthrowing the government they were intending to create, is not ignorance, but stupid. They hated a foreign power, even the monarchy that sent them, or their predecessors to this country, often as indentured servants (white slaves) dictating from abroad, what they saw as “unjust” laws, infringing on their “rights”, to get rich and keep the proceeds!
Comment on a comment: "no it is 2nd because the 1st is the declaration of the individual, then you need a way to defend what you are declaring. The pen is only mightier then the sword because has to stand behind what is written. "
Sorry, all amendments are numbered in the order in which they were ratified. In the order in which they were listed when sent out for ratification, the current 1st and 2nd were 2nd and 3rd; the original “first” amendment was never ratified.
Direct comment on Morin’s editorial cartoon: Ignorance abounds, both technical and historical.
Firearms before the Revolutionary War included multi-shot repeating flintlocks – in the NRA Firearms Museum’s mid-18th Century section, you can find a very well designed 7 shot repeater, and two different types of 12-shot repeaters of simpler design; there were also multi-barrel “volley guns” which fired all barrels at once. I read several years ago that there was a full-auto flintlock made in the 18th century (fired all charges sequentially with one pull of the trigger), but I can’t find a reference to it now. Hundreds of years before, the Chinese had a magazine-fed repeating crossbow. The founders, many of them being tinkerers and inventors, as well as being extremely well-read, certainly had a pretty good idea of what kind of “arms” a soldier might have. Remember, they also had hand grenades, mortars, and rockets then, as well as personally-owned cannon and armed ships.The founders would NOT have expected the government to “regulate” (that’s not what the word means in the 2nd Amendment, anyway) more lethal arms than those then in use, as the 2nd was written to recognize the necessary right of the citizenry to have the same arms as used by anyone’s standing army or Organized Militia.
“We’re not talking about taking guns away but restricting the availability of some guns and some magazines. A sane approach to an insane problem.”
No, that’s an insane approach to something that is a criminal problem, not a gun problem. We already have over 20,000 gun control laws on the books, not ONE of which EVER prevented a crime from being committed. The mis-called “assault weapon” and standard-capacity magazine ban of which you prate was the law of the land from1994 to 2004, and did nothing to prevent the 1999 school massacre in Littleton, CO. That law was allowed to sunset because everybody recognized that it had not had any measurable effect on crime of any kind during the decade-plus it was in effect.
It doesn’t matter what kind of new law you create (can you think one up that hasn’t already been passed? I doubt it), it runs up against the rock-solid fact that criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. What that means, is that your wonderful new law would ONLY affect all the law-abiding gun owners in the US (somewhere between 30 and 80 million of them), without even inconveniencing a single criminal. That is neither an effective nor a sane approach. And it is also an “infringement” on our rights, as recognized by the Constitution, so it’s not even within Congress’ power (that’s why the 1968 Gun Control Act and the subsequent Brady Act don’t regulate intra-state gun sales between private individuals – they couldn’t stretch the “interstate commerce clause” that far, no matter how hard they tried – it’s also why the 1934 National Firearms Act taxes transfer of full-auto weapons, but does not prohibit their possession by individuals).
As suicide is illegal in most jurisdictions, I suppose it should carry the death penalty?
Almost all fatalities in “hunting accidents” are the result of LEGAL owners using LEGAL guns, and in recent years, even some AR type weapons have been involved. As noted above, all those folks committing suicide are of course, “criminals” as well.
I would also like those stating there are 20,000 gun control laws (some say 50,000!) come up with even 100 that are actually DIFFERENT laws, not just repetition of the same laws from one jurisdiction to another. Slight variance of “carry permit” regulations from area to area are also NOT “different” laws, the basic law is simply that you have to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Felon in possession is both federal and state, but just one law, namely a felon can’t have access to a firearm. Now if you want “different”, how about the LAW in some areas that some felons CAN clear their record, and carry weapons again! Hmm, that’s not a restriction on the “right to possess”, but rather, the opposite, but it IS a “gun law”.
It is not the governments job to regulate anything.It is most certainly not the governments job to interfere in the day to day lives of its citizens or to usurp States Rights.
And it is in no way the governments job to try to collectively abolish individual rights.
Each person may forfeit his or her rights if they abuse them to the harm of others. But to take everyones’ rights away because of what a handful of people do is like abolishing the freedom of the press because one tabloid prints libel.
The sheer foolishness of anyone who believes that laws stop criminals is unbelieveable.
It seems many people have no idea about the effectiveness of guns in the 1800’s. The reason bayonets were attached was not for trying to scare the enemy but because the cartridges were known to explode effectively killing whomever was holding it.
The fact that there were battles with over 400 combatants that after 4 hours would have roughly 50 casualties.
Now do you think that if you had 400 people in a rebelion having a gunfight how many hours do you think it would take to gain 50 casualties.
I have no idea how other first world countries with no 2nd amendment in their constitutions or government charters manage to survive. In those countries, citizens only have the right to bear arms when the local law permits them to do so. Those countries must be populated by mindless drones who do whatever their government asks because the government has all of the guns.
chazandru over 11 years ago
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/peopleevents/pande22.htmlThis is what the founders did when Alexander Hamilton, in order to pay for debt accrued by the colonies during the revolution, put a tax on whiskey and the first anti tax lobby rose up in protest. It was called the Whiskey Rebellion.and btw, Dr. Canuck…in regard to your comment under Drew Litton’s hockey editorial….I don’t believe a Canadian can be considered an objective voice where hockey is concerned. (insert evil grin here)Oh…and I was also surprised to discover your country has its own Strategic Reserve…of Maple Syrup. That’s awesome. The Waffle and Pancake eaters of America will praise the foresight of our Northern Neighbor.Being a REAL southerner, I prefer biscuits with butter and molasses or honey and a side of good ol’ grits. When my diet permits./sighwistfully,C.
Odon Premium Member over 11 years ago
I am comfortable with the thought that our forefathers were true statesman who, having a standing army, would not tolerate the excessive death by gunfire of today’s America. If you want quotes how about: " I am sorry to inform you that your _____ has been killed." Repeat ad nauseam.
ARodney over 11 years ago
Harley thinks that the idea that fire should be regulated is really funny. He’s obviously never designed a building. Fire is regulated a lot more than firearms are. Outdoor fires were banned for about six months in most Western states last year because it was the hottest year on record and thousands of famlies lost their homes to drought and climate change.
We will always regulate arms — unless you’re one of those who think it’s fine for Iran to get a nuclear bomb. It’s a question of where you draw the line. How many people should you be allowed to kill at one go? Conservatives try to pretend that arms control is an absolute: ALL weapons or NO weapons, in hopes that they can prevent the line from being redrawn more rationally. It’s time to start ignoring them.
Dtroutma over 11 years ago
Doc; you’re probably well aware the founding fathers weren’t too sure the Frenchies wouldn’t try coming south from your area either, or north from that territory we later bought from them to end that end.
Clown, at least until sepsis set in, a musket ball of the day was pretty benign compared to the damage a saber, tomahawk, bayonet, or even a mace could do.That’s why duels were fought with pistols, as being a more “survivable” way to settle an argument, Hamilton not withstanding.
Also, when NRA and “gun nuts” finally recognize the first sentence of the Second Amendment, not the last, and recognize that the Articles of Confederation called for all those “arms” to be strictly controlled by THE STATE until needed to repel INVASION, or REBELLION, they MIGHT show they know history, and what the actual intent of the amendment was. It did NOT, EVER, suggest that rising against a democratically elected government, in a republic, not a monarchy, was intended, or valid. Trying to tie the founders words, and “quotes” (out of context) to overthrowing the government they were intending to create, is not ignorance, but stupid. They hated a foreign power, even the monarchy that sent them, or their predecessors to this country, often as indentured servants (white slaves) dictating from abroad, what they saw as “unjust” laws, infringing on their “rights”, to get rich and keep the proceeds!
Richard Zellich Premium Member over 11 years ago
Comment on a comment: "no it is 2nd because the 1st is the declaration of the individual, then you need a way to defend what you are declaring. The pen is only mightier then the sword because has to stand behind what is written. "
Sorry, all amendments are numbered in the order in which they were ratified. In the order in which they were listed when sent out for ratification, the current 1st and 2nd were 2nd and 3rd; the original “first” amendment was never ratified.Direct comment on Morin’s editorial cartoon: Ignorance abounds, both technical and historical.
Firearms before the Revolutionary War included multi-shot repeating flintlocks – in the NRA Firearms Museum’s mid-18th Century section, you can find a very well designed 7 shot repeater, and two different types of 12-shot repeaters of simpler design; there were also multi-barrel “volley guns” which fired all barrels at once. I read several years ago that there was a full-auto flintlock made in the 18th century (fired all charges sequentially with one pull of the trigger), but I can’t find a reference to it now. Hundreds of years before, the Chinese had a magazine-fed repeating crossbow. The founders, many of them being tinkerers and inventors, as well as being extremely well-read, certainly had a pretty good idea of what kind of “arms” a soldier might have. Remember, they also had hand grenades, mortars, and rockets then, as well as personally-owned cannon and armed ships.The founders would NOT have expected the government to “regulate” (that’s not what the word means in the 2nd Amendment, anyway) more lethal arms than those then in use, as the 2nd was written to recognize the necessary right of the citizenry to have the same arms as used by anyone’s standing army or Organized Militia.Richard Zellich Premium Member over 11 years ago
“We’re not talking about taking guns away but restricting the availability of some guns and some magazines. A sane approach to an insane problem.”
No, that’s an insane approach to something that is a criminal problem, not a gun problem. We already have over 20,000 gun control laws on the books, not ONE of which EVER prevented a crime from being committed. The mis-called “assault weapon” and standard-capacity magazine ban of which you prate was the law of the land from1994 to 2004, and did nothing to prevent the 1999 school massacre in Littleton, CO. That law was allowed to sunset because everybody recognized that it had not had any measurable effect on crime of any kind during the decade-plus it was in effect.
It doesn’t matter what kind of new law you create (can you think one up that hasn’t already been passed? I doubt it), it runs up against the rock-solid fact that criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. What that means, is that your wonderful new law would ONLY affect all the law-abiding gun owners in the US (somewhere between 30 and 80 million of them), without even inconveniencing a single criminal. That is neither an effective nor a sane approach. And it is also an “infringement” on our rights, as recognized by the Constitution, so it’s not even within Congress’ power (that’s why the 1968 Gun Control Act and the subsequent Brady Act don’t regulate intra-state gun sales between private individuals – they couldn’t stretch the “interstate commerce clause” that far, no matter how hard they tried – it’s also why the 1934 National Firearms Act taxes transfer of full-auto weapons, but does not prohibit their possession by individuals).
Dtroutma over 11 years ago
As suicide is illegal in most jurisdictions, I suppose it should carry the death penalty?
Almost all fatalities in “hunting accidents” are the result of LEGAL owners using LEGAL guns, and in recent years, even some AR type weapons have been involved. As noted above, all those folks committing suicide are of course, “criminals” as well.
I would also like those stating there are 20,000 gun control laws (some say 50,000!) come up with even 100 that are actually DIFFERENT laws, not just repetition of the same laws from one jurisdiction to another. Slight variance of “carry permit” regulations from area to area are also NOT “different” laws, the basic law is simply that you have to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Felon in possession is both federal and state, but just one law, namely a felon can’t have access to a firearm. Now if you want “different”, how about the LAW in some areas that some felons CAN clear their record, and carry weapons again! Hmm, that’s not a restriction on the “right to possess”, but rather, the opposite, but it IS a “gun law”.
Rocky Premium Member over 11 years ago
It is not the governments job to regulate anything.It is most certainly not the governments job to interfere in the day to day lives of its citizens or to usurp States Rights.
And it is in no way the governments job to try to collectively abolish individual rights.
Each person may forfeit his or her rights if they abuse them to the harm of others. But to take everyones’ rights away because of what a handful of people do is like abolishing the freedom of the press because one tabloid prints libel.
The sheer foolishness of anyone who believes that laws stop criminals is unbelieveable.
Odon Premium Member over 11 years ago
Read the word “would” in my comment then, agree or not, you should understand my statement.
Odon Premium Member over 11 years ago
Again to your asinine comparison I say ban birth and in a few generations we can solve all of mankind’s problems.
Quipss over 11 years ago
It seems many people have no idea about the effectiveness of guns in the 1800’s. The reason bayonets were attached was not for trying to scare the enemy but because the cartridges were known to explode effectively killing whomever was holding it.
The fact that there were battles with over 400 combatants that after 4 hours would have roughly 50 casualties.
Now do you think that if you had 400 people in a rebelion having a gunfight how many hours do you think it would take to gain 50 casualties.
ScullyUFO over 11 years ago
I have no idea how other first world countries with no 2nd amendment in their constitutions or government charters manage to survive. In those countries, citizens only have the right to bear arms when the local law permits them to do so. Those countries must be populated by mindless drones who do whatever their government asks because the government has all of the guns.