How can we regulate guns ... ?

And part of that contract is to give up rights they would have as an independent nation because they are now done by the Union\Federal government. Meanwhile corporations have pretty well taken over governments while you've been polishing your guns and looking out for federal barnstorming troops to invade your town. Curiously, I did a little reading on this subject:The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

quote:

---

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

​

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

​

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

​

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

​

If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband - or even move out of the state - those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.

​

These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).

---

So the amendment was made to allow the southern states keep - and kill - slaves without federal interference.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : db or not db, that is the question

Aw, it didn't work in those cases. In TWO cases the armed defenders weren't where they were needed when they were needed. But that's another reason to restrict the gun rights of millions of law-abiding citizens?.You want to treat the real problem you say. Well THAT is not the general ownership of guns by millions of Americans. Tell you what, RAZD, none of the gun control measures are going to stop these murders EITHER.Wait and see how long it is before another such incident occurs after all Obama's measures are in place. And what will happen? MORE outcry against GUNS. Which are NOT the problem.There is evidence that psychiatric drugs have been involved in just about all of these cases. Why isn't THIS targeted instead of guns? Why not strengthen laws having to do with qualifications to possess guns rather than attack EVERYBODY's rights?The fact that these terrible incidents are ALWAYS the excuse for tightening laws against guns for MILLIONS OF GOOD GUYS while they do NOT EVER EVER EVER improve the situation that brought abhout the incidents in the first place is just about the DEFINITION OF INSANITY ITSELF.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Another poor-quality post from a poster whom I've otherwise regarded as top-notch. I didn't say any of that. You made it up, and pretended I said it. What I specifically said was: "And the fact is that events like Sandy Hook are so incredibly rare that they should have no influence on legislation whatsoever." Again; not what I said. Here it is again for your enjoyment:"And the fact is that events like Sandy Hook are so incredibly rare that they should have no influence on legislation whatsoever." Strike three. Here is my reply to you one more time:"And the fact is that events like Sandy Hook are so incredibly rare that they should have no influence on legislation whatsoever."

Update Your Browser | Facebook?

quote:

---

Or how about a Secret Service-level background check for all firearms and ammunition and accessory purchases?

​

---

Seems reasonable to me.Include prescription drugs related to mental health ...Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

Since you brought up conspiracies; here's another one for you:

I am profoundly opposed to mandated drug-testing of any kind unless meaningful need can be shown for the testing.I am most certainly against drug-testing people as a condition of welfare reception.Nevertheless, the right to keep and bear a firearm is guaranteed by the Constitution; there is likewise no guaranteed right to welfare benefits.

Oh for crying out loud. You'd worry about a grass roots organization when it's the government the amendment was intended to fend off.

That herring stinks, man.Why not put a lid on it?

and yet ...Columbine and Virginia Tech had armed guards and they didn't save a single life, they had no impact on the slaughter of students.That's reality Faith.Enjoy.

ah, no rebuttal ...... possible because certain founders are actually quoted saying that the amendment was necessary so that they could keep keeping slaves and keep killing slaves suspected of fighting for their rights and dignity as human beings.Facts, Jon.Enjoy

Nor did I say you said it -- what I pointed out was that you said nothing should be done ... and how ridiculous that position was. Again, I didn't say you said it -- I showed you how silly your position was by parody. So you are still saying we should do nothing, and that anything rare can be ignored and forgotten. I notice that my "member rating" has once again dropped below 9 -- good, because that means that I am once again annoying people with irrational beliefs and silly positions.Enjoy

Yes you ARE annoying some of us with your irrational beliefs and silly positions. Your arguments here are really really silly.Jon did not say nothing should be done, he said LEGISLATION would not be the right response.And I agree with him about that although I might disagree with him about what measures should be taken.Legislation aimed at limiting the gun rights of millions of law-abiding citizens is NOT a reasonable solution to a very rare situation caused by crazies. How absolutely irrational and silly can you get?I still favor the idea of teachers qualifying for concealed carry permits, but I'm also in favor of armed guards, I just don't think they would be as effective as a few staff carrying guns. This doesn't involve legislation.But if you ARE going to consider legislation then it should be about who qualifies to carry a gun.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yeah, so no legislation and don't propose anything else to me means do nothing but pretend it is something? Really? So we ban the types of guns the "crazies" use and then they can't use them.Show me a rational civilian need to have guns with interchangeable magazines that carry ammunition. I haven't seen one yet, and I note that these are the guns of preference for the crazies.You still have guns, so your right to bear arms is not infringed. Really?So how did the armed guards help at Columbine and Virginia Tech?If you can't show that they improved the situation then advocating armed guards is school is silly and irrational.What annoys you is that you don't have the answer you want. The evidence does not support your position. I'm just the messenger -- so address the message not the person.It amuses me every time someone jeers me because I don't support their irrational beliefs and silly arguments, so keep clicking them Faith.Enjoy.

Why don't you respond to my entire post instead of taking parts of it out of context.I said we COULD legislate standards of qualification, but that it makes no sense to restrict the gun rights of millions of good citizens.No we do not ban GUNS, period, RAZD. Wasn't I clear about that? gthe kinds of guns "crazies" use aren't all that different from the kind needed by ordinary citizens. But I have no problem with banning machine guns and other such weapons. But they are ALREADY banned.You ARE being irrational and silly. TWO incidents where guards were present but not available proves absolutely NOTHING. And again I'm for concealed carry more than I am for visible armed guards.And I relish the jeers I get here too. So glad you enjoy yours. You richly deserve them on this thread.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So universal background checks, even for private sales, gun owner photo ID cards to register guns to the purchasers, drug testing for hallucinogenic or mental health drugs? Target practice is just sublimated killing -- show me a real alternative use.Enjoy.