John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

What I would add to your paragraph about other countries is that they all, save for Switzerland, have experienced savage war and so the populace understands the difference between ‘h*****g together’ and ‘h*****g separately’. As for other parts of your piece I would have used ‘many’ instead of ‘most.’ Good piece.

Bison Bud

I did not state that SCOTUS ruled that citizens were entitled to weapons comparable to those of the military. However, I did state that Justice Scalia wrote about this in his arguements during the case. Frankly, I found it refreshing and reassuring that at least one of the Justices understood the law as written rather than wanting to legislate from the bench to promote their own beliefs and agenda. It is SCOTUS's job to interput the law as written, not use their power and position to change it! At least they rendered a realistic verdict, but it still shocks me just how close the v**e was on this issue!

pendennis

The text of Federalist #29, while not specifically referring to individuals, is obviously meant as an explanation of an individual right, since m*****a meant the collection of able-bodied men to answer a call to arms.

The state m*****as in the aggregate were already accounted for within Article II, Section 8, Clauses 13 & 14 -

The Bill of Rights, through the 2nd Amendment guaranteed the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. The remainder of the Bill of Rights, in every instance guarantees the rights of the individual. Even the 9th & 10th Amendments speak to limiting the government's power.

Further, the right to keep and bear arms in one's own defense long precedes the U.S. Constitution, and was long recognized as a basic human right.

Why would Madison suddenly veer from individual rights, to aggregate rights of m*****as? Madison's original phrasing of the 2nd Amendment stated:

Even alllowing for rephrasing, it's highly unlikely that Madison suddenly swerved to aggregate rights.

You're also misstating the definition of a "musket". Musket is a term for shoulder arms for the army. It is not a specific type of firearm. M*****as would not have standardized firearms such as the British Brown Bess, or the French Charleville. Adding "musket" to either of these shoulder arms is an oxymoron. The colonists, later the states, m*****as had a hodgepodge of arms, some smooth-bore, some rifled. There were also fowling pieces, usually .62 caliber which doubled as a shotgun (near today's 20 gauge). The m*****a members supplied their own arms, and enough shot/ball and powder as required by their own regulations. M*****as in Pennsylvania had members who used rifles built in various configurations depending on the county where gunsmiths plied their trade.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

Then how are they doing it?

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Wikipedia has a very good article on the Second Amendment that is quite detailed in its history. In a Federalist Paper James Madison wrote of the importance of State M*****as to counter a national army. There is even different punctuation in the versions of the Amendment in which the clauses are set off differently. One should note the difference between the version passed by Congress and the version ratified by the States. And, last, the number of Supreme Court decisions. All of this defines the Amendment, which calls for deep thought to fully understand.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

I am posting this time in support of you saying you only said handguns. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. Those were your words.

Then I ADDED a comment to show why it was only handguns. Other firearms in DC were already allowed.

Don’t you read what is written or like most Liberals do you answer already foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog?

The rest of my post is in support of common sense people who KNOW that military firearms, handguns, shotguns and rifles, all types of operating actions even semi auto guns have commonly been sold to the public through the DCM.

Sorry but we all have a chance here to add our own comments. I don’t recall disputing your comments. Do you? Did I add facts you wanted kept secret?

The important part of Heller was the Individual Right rather than a Collective Right.

Dennis

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Who are you talking to?

Dennis

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

Do ya hafta ask ??

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Who are you talking to? If you want us to know your meaning then please click on Quote Reply before answering a specific post. It helps keep these threads together.

Dennis

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

My apologies to all. I was looking at the post on my phone and then switched over to the computer. In the meantime my brain was just waking up from a much needed nap.

Again, my apologies,

Dennis

anotherview Loc: California

The Founding Fathers could have outlawed private gunownership. Instead, they gave us the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

jcboy3

I'm sort of missing the part where the Constitution allows for any restrictions on who can own a gun or which gun or how many guns. And so, if we allow for certain limitations as being "obvious", well then we are simply discussing what those limitations should be. Making it a matter of opinion and subject to the whimsy of those currently in power. And, as with most things in the Constitution, it was an incomplete and not well thought out idea.

Angmo

We the people can have firearms. Period. I do wish England had done worse to the colonies. Everything they did we have rights to protect.

The English language interpretation of the second amendment has already been adjudicated.

Study more case law. You can find it. If not, just ask a third grade grade English teacher. They’ll set you straight.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

That not well thought out idea has sustained America for well over 200 years now. In theory it gives Americans more freedom to succeed than any other country on the planet. It also limits government intervention that would stop Americans from succeeding and then taking more and more of our money. The Constitution was designed exactly for the type of government you Liberals want to push upon We the People right now. You want to take away our rights. You want to make it so that people like me who has worked all my life will now be giving my money to people who have never worked a day in their life. This would all be in the name of e******y for all. But of course the Founding Fathers only wanted freedom of opportunity for all. Nobody ever said America was going to be a Socialist State where I and others are required to support the other half of America PLUS wh**ever i*****l a***ns you Liberals can squeeze into the country.

No, the Constitution has worked well along with a Capitalist economy since before 1789 and will keep on working just fine as designed by some of the smartest and forward thinking men in history. It is only because it doesn't suit the corrupt needs of you Liberals that you whine and b***h like Snowflakes and girls.

Dennis

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

Read a book, preferably the Federalist Papers.