steve

Yeah, wasn't the American Revolution the first implementation of Gandhi's theory of non-violence?

If you know your American history you'll know that after the revolutionary war, some Americans took up arms against their new government (Shays Rebellion, Whiskey Rebellion) and those events, in particular Shays, prompted the writing of a Federal Constitution. This new constitution was Intended to allow the government to better enforce its laws and regulations and eliminate armed insurrections from citizens who decided by themselves "to take up arms against a tyrannical govenrment".
And yet, many still believe that citizens have the right to take up arms against the govenrment.
The presence of militias and the intemperate use of language like Jeffersons letter responding to a friend about Shays rebellion (Blood to water the tree of liberty) are examples of the justification for violent acts.
There is, it seems to me, a general acceptance of this on the far right.
Similarily the American left tolerated language like this when it was lined up against the Vietnam war... and it lead to instances of bombings and violent protests. And we still see the far left popping up with violence at G20 gatherings etc.)
Intemperate language creates an atmosphere where violent radicals find tolerance for their radical thoughts, which can encourage them to act on them. Those with a tenuous grasp on reality, like Loughren are more likely to act on the words.
It would be nice if more politicians actually stood up to mischaracterizations, and misinterpretations, and corrected the behaviour of supporters.
And it cuts both ways...
An example; the non-response of most republicans to the Birther issue. (Notably, Except, and I can't believe I'm typing this, for Sarah Palin...)

rickyp wrote:If you know your American history you'll know that after the revolutionary war, some Americans took up arms against their new government (Shays Rebellion, Whiskey Rebellion) and those events, in particular Shays, prompted the writing of a Federal Constitution. This new constitution was Intended to allow the government to better enforce its laws and regulations and eliminate armed insurrections from citizens who decided by themselves "to take up arms against a tyrannical govenrment".

You are an utter fool. The Constitution (and one would presume the Bill of Rights) were designed to protect the government from insurrections?

Who taught you American History? Karl Marx?

That the Constitution offered a stronger Federal government than the Articles of Confederation is true, but the concern was that they would go too far in the other direction (the AoC gave the central government virtually no power). So, the Constitution and the BoR were intended to restrain the Federal government, NOT to restrain the people.

And yet, many still believe that citizens have the right to take up arms against the govenrment.

And, some of us just believe what the Bill of Rights says, which you are completely ignorant of.

There is, it seems to me, a general acceptance of this on the far right.

Do tell. How many "far right" Americans do you know well? (And no, watching edited clips of O'Reilly doesn't count)

Similarily the American left tolerated language like this when it was lined up against the Vietnam war... and it lead to instances of bombings and violent protests. And we still see the far left popping up with violence at G20 gatherings etc.)
Intemperate language creates an atmosphere where violent radicals find tolerance for their radical thoughts, which can encourage them to act on them. Those with a tenuous grasp on reality, like Loughren are more likely to act on the words.

Other than a general incoherence, this part of your post is notable for two things:

1. You still can't figure out that it's "Loughner."
2. You are still trying to link Loughner's actions to rhetoric. After all the evidence we've seen that he was insane and had a fixation on Giffords and was seemingly apolitical, you still cling bitterly to your guns and rhetoric nonsense.

It would be nice if more politicians actually stood up to mischaracterizations, and misinterpretations, and corrected the behaviour of supporters.
And it cuts both ways...

Yeah, it would be great to see Obama tell his union pals to stop comparing Governor Walker to Hitler. Of course, that would take courage--something Obama has yet to show in ANY setting.

An example; the non-response of most republicans to the Birther issue. (Notably, Except, and I can't believe I'm typing this, for Sarah Palin...)

More garbage. Republicans should, what, spend all their time on the 2 percent who believe this stuff? Okay, I'll sign up--right after the Democrats go after all the Halliburton/Cheney/Revenge for 41/Iraq conspirators.

Oh, I'm sorry, did I step on your toes and cause . . . pain?

The rebellion and the Constitution
Shays' Rebellion had a generally unifying effect upon the supporters of a stronger national government, and it was a lesson frequently invoked on the floor of the Federal Convention during the summer of 1787.
For George Washington, who gave the insurrection as a reason for his own attendance at the Philadelphia convention, "there could be no stronger evidence of the want of energy in our governments than these disorders."
Massachusetts, its prestige in the union challenged, sent none other than Caleb Strong as one of its representatives to the Federal Convention, partly in order to signal to the nation that order was being restored -- for Strong was a conspicuously pro-government gentleman representing a notoriously unruly state.
Shays' Rebellion became a recurring example in the debates among framers of the Constitution, encouraging some to favor the "Virginia plan" (which called for an unprecedented and powerful central government) over the alternative "New Jersey plan" (which seemed too favorable to state sovereignty). "The rebellion in Massachusetts is a warning, gentlemen," cautioned James Madison, proponent of the Virginia plan.
The Virginia plan -- the basis of a government that balances federal and state power, and balances the power among the states themselves -- carried by a vote of seven to three on June 19, 1787. The proposed Constitution of the United States, safeguarding the institution of property from financial disruption and from future taxpayer rebellions, was signed by 39 representatives of 12 states on September 17, 1787

source: http://www.calliope.org/shays/shays2.html

and?
absolutely nowhere does it state anything about the right to take up arms. The Federal Government got a bit stronger, it got further and further stronger over time as well. Yet we still have that right and are allowed to arm ourselves for that purpose among others. This has nothing, zero, nada, zip, zilch to do with the right to take up arms. You may as well have posted a pork roast recipe, it would have had the same effect.

rickyp wrote:The rebellion and the Constitution
Shays' Rebellion had a generally unifying effect upon the supporters of a stronger national government, and it was a lesson frequently invoked on the floor of the Federal Convention during the summer of 1787.
For George Washington, who gave the insurrection as a reason for his own attendance at the Philadelphia convention, "there could be no stronger evidence of the want of energy in our governments than these disorders."
Massachusetts, its prestige in the union challenged, sent none other than Caleb Strong as one of its representatives to the Federal Convention, partly in order to signal to the nation that order was being restored -- for Strong was a conspicuously pro-government gentleman representing a notoriously unruly state.
Shays' Rebellion became a recurring example in the debates among framers of the Constitution, encouraging some to favor the "Virginia plan" (which called for an unprecedented and powerful central government) over the alternative "New Jersey plan" (which seemed too favorable to state sovereignty). "The rebellion in Massachusetts is a warning, gentlemen," cautioned James Madison, proponent of the Virginia plan.
The Virginia plan -- the basis of a government that balances federal and state power, and balances the power among the states themselves -- carried by a vote of seven to three on June 19, 1787. The proposed Constitution of the United States, safeguarding the institution of property from financial disruption and from future taxpayer rebellions, was signed by 39 representatives of 12 states on September 17, 1787

source: http://www.calliope.org/shays/shays2.html

Thanks for making my point, which was:

Doctor Fate wrote:That the Constitution offered a stronger Federal government than the Articles of Confederation is true, but the concern was that they would go too far in the other direction (the AoC gave the central government virtually no power). So, the Constitution and the BoR were intended to restrain the Federal government, NOT to restrain the people.

I appreciate the back up. Did you have a point?

steve

That the Constitution offered a stronger Federal government than the Articles of Confederation is true, but the concern was that they would go too far in the other direction

Where is that expressed in the response to Shays? An armed insurrection ocurred. The result? A stronger constitution that reinforced the ability of the Federal Government to both make and enforce laws.
The notion that the Federal govenrment should not be strong was incorporated in the Articles of Confederation and the writing of the Constitution was an admission that without a strong National government the country was ungovernable.
As someone who repeatedly discerns a difference between an identical law made by a state and a law made by the federal government I'm certain you have trouble with this idea.

Now I said:
And yet, many still believe that citizens have the right to take up arms against the govenrment.
and you responded.

And, some of us just believe what the Bill of Rights says, which you are completely ignorant of.

And my question is, do you beleive that the Bill of Rights includes the right to take up arms against the federal govenrment if private citizens believe it represents a tyrannical government?

In past discussion people on this board have repeatedly quoted Jeffersons "Tree of Liberty" letter written in response to concerns over the Shays rebellion. The context of his isolation on the matter, the actual historical response, and the whole inconsequential effect his position had on the actual response by the authors of the constitution indicates that "armed insurection" was never a "Right". And yet we still have the quote decorating Tea Party and Guns right web sites, and media releases ad nauseum.
Your point about the Bill of Rights Steve?

and your point about gun ownership Ricky?
I really am trying to follow you but it makes no sense. We have the right to own guns in part to protect ourselves from a government that gets out of hand, while it may certainly be illegal to do so, our founding fathers wanted this ability to be there, so we would not be sheep led to slaughter, your little history lesson does absolutely nothing to change the situation and in fact goes a little the other way.

tom

We have the right to own guns in part to protect ourselves from a government that gets out of hand, while it may certainly be illegal to do so, our founding fathers wanted this ability to be there

Regarding armed insurrection.
If its illegal its not a right.
If it is a right, its not illegal.
Make up your tiny little mind.
And when you do, quote from the appropriate document that supports your contention. Steve has refered to the Constitution and I'm waiting for his reply.

From an article by Carl Bogus, Professor of Law, Rutgers.

In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, backcountry farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky threatened tax collectors and otherwise used intimidation to obstruct collection of a federal tax on whiskey. They carried muskets and marched as militia under banners proclaiming “Liberty and Equality” and other slogans of the French Revolution. Washington said allowing such conduct would bring an “end to our Constitution & laws,” and he personally led 12,000 troops to extinguish the rebellion.
The Constitution is more than a legal document; it is the scripture of American political theology. The interpretation of the Second Amendment is about more than the government’s authority to regulate guns. It involves whether we choose to place our ultimate faith in constitutional structure or in guns.
The insurrectionist view has been present throughout American history, but until relatively recently it has primarily been popular with vigilantes and paramilitary groups. But this view is now being taken up by libertarians who worship the individual and are hostile to government.

http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_bogus4_12-04-07_RJ80MH6_v7.2a87d62.html

please tell me where I mentioned it being either a right or being legal.
The founding fathers however did want the population to be able to rebel against an unjust federal government.
Your quote by Jefferson mentions this quite well, "Blood to water the tree of liberty"
The second amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Standing armies were not to be trusted, militias were the common people who acted together in defense of their government, because a standing army is not to be fully trusted. We studied this stuff in school ricky, 10th grade if I remember correctly. I don't believe they teach the American constitution in Canada, maybe they should since you like to be an expert on it. There are lefty loonies who want to pretend it somehow means something different now, they point to the National Guard taking up this role and they are right to an extent however the National Guard is a standing army, one that also can not be fully trusted, one must understand the constitution written at the time and not what it means today. Government armies could not be trusted and the regular guy had his small part as he does today as well.

rickyp wrote:Intemperate language creates an atmosphere where violent radicals find tolerance for their radical thoughts, which can encourage them to act on them. Those with a tenuous grasp on reality, like Loughren are more likely to act on the words.

It would be useful here to distinguish between "fighting words" used by senior radicals and a general atmosphere of hostility created by use of violent imagery in the society at large. I think revolutionaries are much more influenced by the former than the latter. As for groups like The Weathermen, it can hardly be said that their violence was caused, encouraged, or in any way influenced by the "intemperate" language used by public figures or anyone else. Ditto the Black Panthers. You're not really talking about "violent radicals" but rather about sociopaths, psychopaths, or those suffering from antisocial personality disorder (of the malevolent variety) or a severe conduct disorder. Most "violent radicals" throughout history have not been mentally ill, and are usually influenced by events and circumstances of real life rather than the general rhetorical tone of popular discourse. Of course, almost any revolutionary is susceptible to rousing oratory, but surely you're not comparing the current "atmosphere" of rhetoric to something like this*



Let's distinguish between those who fully comprehend the moral significance of killing another human and those who's appreciation of that is critically marred by malfunctioning gray matter. "The words" you were referring to at the end of what I quoted are not the words that influence sane radicals.

I agree with you that when coarse, vicious, vulgar language is used by anyone when discussing any emotional issue, those with emotional difficulties can be aroused. But in many cases they can be almost equally aroused by calm, polite discourse if the issue has enough emotional poignancy.

Next...

Ricky wrote:This new constitution was Intended to allow the government to better enforce its laws and regulations and eliminate armed insurrections from citizens who decided by themselves "to take up arms against a tyrannical govenrment". ... An armed insurrection ocurred. The result? A stronger constitution that reinforced the ability of the Federal Government to both make and enforce laws.

With these lines you give the impression that the US Constitution was designed to combat the contra-coercive power the people could employ, and did in the incidents you mentioned. If that was the case, why were no attempts made at the federal level to regulate gun ownership or use prior to the 1930's? If the 2nd Amendment meant what you're implying it meant, the obvious next step after its passage would be for the Feds to limit gun ownership/possession to militia duty.

I have in the past forwarded the "insurrectionist" argument and still believe it's cogent. But it's simplistic. Sometimes the causes of an effect are manifold. It had been noted long before 1791 that individualism was for Americans (or those who'd eventually become one) a credo, an ideal, and often a simple necessity. Individualism and liberalism are practically synonyms, and there's no more liberal a document than the US Bill of Rights. When it was drafted 95% of USA citizens resided in the countryside - only 5% in cities. Guns made individualism, self-reliance, and rural entrepreneurship possible. The US Bill of Rights could no more limit gun ownership and get ratified than it could outlaw the private ownership of horses and get ratified. I think that was the primary political situation. In theory, some of the key founders no doubt had resistance to tyranny and repression in mind. They feared what the Federal Gov't could become way more than most because they had studied government and had served in government. Control of slaves probably played a very small role in the matter.

By the 1930's lots had changed, yet I think that if technology hadn't advanced they still would not have been able to pass federal gun legislation. It was machine guns, silencers, miniaturized guns, and other "high tech" weaponry - in the hands of characters like Dillinger and Capone - that captured the public's attention. It was Capone's capturing of the civil institutions of Chicago that got the attention of the Feds. And it was the Great Depression, the first Red Scare, and WWI that had put enough of a dent in individualism/liberalism to make the change in Americans' priorities possible.

All that is just my interpretation of history. My policy stance has little to do with any of that. It's over 80 years since the Saint Valentine's Day massacre and over 120 years since the Wounded Knee Massacre. The USA is a stressful place to live and over 80% of us reside in metropolitan areas. Individualism is a wonderful ideal but its practical significance has been greatly diminished. It's reasonable to reassess gun policy in light of these changes. Perhaps the 2nd needs to be rescinded.

When I talk about traditional liberalism I mean a political philosophy that first and foremost places all sovereignty with the people - with a minimum of restrictions on who that encompasses. Freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, lots of other freedoms, but primarily freedom from fear of your own government. Folks... we lost that a while back. The "insurrectionist" theory underlying the 2nd is no longer relevant because we have long ago passed the time when it might have had any practical value or meaning. If we haven't risen up in anger to violently overthrow the tyrants before now, we're not ever going to do it. Besides, as proven by our own Civil Rights movement and by the last few weeks in North Africa, the age of using violence to change government is over.

So I'd like to find a way to manage gun possession. I have absolutely no empathy with people who hunt for sport, even if they eat the meat that cost them $900 a pound once you add up everything they spent to kill that animal. My sympathies lie with the creature being shot, hooked, or speared. There's a reason they invented video games. I am not convinced by the arguments that guns deter enough crime to make up for the mayhem they otherwise cause. Since such an overwhelming percentage of gun crime victims belong to the more invisible segments of our society, it's easy to avoid developing much empathy for that segment of gun impact. But if gun ownership is tied in with my concept of liberalism, it's precisely those more invisible members of our society that we traditionalists should be looking out for, because it's they who the government will first be treating as something less than fully sovereign citizens.

But... I know of no way to pull off that "management" I think is justified without trampling over a bunch of freedoms - not just the one tangentially mentioned in the 2nd A. I'm stumped. But regulation at the level of automobile ownership seems reasonable enough: registration, title, testing for operational competency and familiarity with safety procedures. Beyond that things get tough. I may, above, have implied that I've thrown in the towel when it comes to governmental powers. Not so. It has more than enough power to stop an armed insurrection - that ship has sailed. But that doesn't mean we should sit around thinking up more ways to add to their power.

* That's Leon Trostsky

Minister X wrote:...

Very thoughtful post, i think i agree with everything but

Minister X wrote:* That's Leon Trostsky

The lack of hair, i think, makes that Wladimir Iljitsch Uljanow

x

With these lines you give the impression that the US Constitution was designed to combat the contra-coercive power the people could employ, and did in the incidents you mentioned. If that was the case, why were no attempts made at the federal level to regulate gun ownership or use prior to the 1930's? If the 2nd Amendment meant what you're implying it meant, the obvious next step after its passage would be for the Feds to limit gun ownership/possession to militia duty.

I don't think that restriction of gun ownership to militias automatically flows from the idea that the US Constitution was written in response to armed insurrection. see below.

x

The US Bill of Rights could no more limit gun ownership and get ratified than it could outlaw the private ownership of horses and get ratified. I think that was the primary political situation

.
Absolutely. In the rural society that the US was, guns were generally considered a necessary tool.

x

In theory, some of the key founders no doubt had resistance to tyranny and repression in mind.

This is the key point I'm trying to make X. You've gone beyond the aim of my position thoughtfully and I appreciate where you've taken this discussion.
But this line is key. The key words being "in theory".
One of the myths that people cling to about the writing of the constitution is that there was an implied "right to armed insurrection to combat tyranny".
This implication has little actual historical support, and a literal reading of the consittution would not support this "theory". And yet, as Tom and Steve have ably demonstrated, this theory, resonates among the populace today.
I appreciate that you've noted that the 2nd amendment was probably written by Madison in part to assure slave holding states that they would continue to be able to arm possees to round up escaped slaves and battle any slave revolts.. There is no written record of Madisons that this was the case either however.
But other than Jefferson's one letter from Paris, none of the Framers supported the right to the rebellions of Shay and Whiskey. Washington famously called them treasonous and lead an army against one of the insurrections.
Its quite clear, that the intent of the new Constitution was to provide for the kinds of power, including a standing army, that would allow the new republic to end attempts at armed insurrection.
Why would any of them then provide for the potential establishment of future insurrections within their new Constituion? The fact is, they didn't.
And yet, the myth that the Founders implied more from the 2nd Amendment is maintained. (Perhaps by lousy grade 10 history teachers....) And today feeds the dangerous fringe element (I think of the private and self labeled "militias") and is fed by the NRA .
That many conservatives support this myth of "an implied right", whilst at the same time demanding a literal interpretation of the intent of the Founders in all other Constitutional matters is interesting. It seems they have flexible positions...
The Founders implied nothing that wasn't demonstrated by their actual actions of writing the Constitution.
If one first removes the myth of this "implied meaning", then perhaps there is room to move in the directions you write about, but until the myth is first dissolved ...you're stuck.
When you knock out the underpinnings of myths with a little scholarship and honesty, a reasonable discussion can begin. For every right wing blog or web site that uses Jeffersons' Tree of Libery letter, there should be an amendment that says, "Whilst Jefferson wrote this arguing against over reacting to Shays Rebellion, it had no impact on the soon to follow Consitutional Convention" which was a direct reaction. If the words had no power to convince then, why are they given credence today?

But Ricky, you are surmising based on your position today. You need to think of the situation at the time of it's writing and that one letter by Jefferson that you want to dismiss carries greater weight in the argument than you want to admit. Jefferson was probably THE single biggest driving force behind the Constitution, it was his baby if you will. Nobody supported an insurrection, it was the ideal that this possibility could happen and would keep the government honest is what this is about.

a few examples of other thoughts by our founding fathers, you can certainly argue the situation being different today but you simply can not take the position you are trying to hoist upon us that they did not intend to give us this ability not that they wanted an insurrection but rather they wanted people to defend their freedoms from a government that might turn tyrannical.

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence."

Thomas Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Patrick Henry:"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.

Samuel Adams:"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

George Mason:"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Thomas Jefferson: "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Tench Coxe: "Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize ... the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

Thomas Jefferson: "One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."

Thomas Jefferson:"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Thomas Jefferson: "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important."

Alexander Hamilton: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government."

Thomas Jefferson: "Most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one's country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government, and acts against the oppressions of the government. The latter are virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former, because real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries."

GMTom wrote:But Ricky, you are surmising based on your position today. You need to think of the situation at the time of it's writing and that one letter by Jefferson that you want to dismiss carries greater weight in the argument than you want to admit. Jefferson was probably THE single biggest driving force behind the Constitution, it was his baby if you will. Nobody supported an insurrection, it was the ideal that this possibility could happen and would keep the government honest is what this is about.

a few examples of other thoughts by our founding fathers, you can certainly argue the situation being different today but you simply can not take the position you are trying to hoist upon us that they did not intend to give us this ability not that they wanted an insurrection but rather they wanted people to defend their freedoms from a government that might turn tyrannical.

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence."

Thomas Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Patrick Henry:"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.

Samuel Adams:"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

George Mason:"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Thomas Jefferson: "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Tench Coxe: "Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize ... the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

Thomas Jefferson: "One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."

Thomas Jefferson:"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Thomas Jefferson: "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important."

Alexander Hamilton: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government."

Thomas Jefferson: "Most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one's country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government, and acts against the oppressions of the government. The latter are virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former, because real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries."

One should not forget however that at that time you were considered really competent if you got off 4 shots a minute with questionable accuracy and when most people had actuall need of a gun to survive.
Maybe they'd rethink their positions someqhat in the face of Uzis and todays general circumstances.
I really have no beef with people owning guns, what i find ludicrous is the people who think public safety would be increased if more people would carry concealed weapons.

That is fine, I actually agree 100% with that position (I'm a conservative in favor of gun control)
But the issue is not one of Uzi's and such. Ricky was trying to say the constitution meant something it most certainly did not. The Canadian is trying to tell the Americans what our Constitution is all about. He may be able to fool those (most of us sadly) who know little about it, but we do learn all about our constitution in school. This stuff was covered and I know it well enough to not be swayed by someone who suggests something that is most certainly not there.

Gun "control" is a whole different ball game with all sorts of gray areas. As long as you do not infringe this basic "Right" (and that's where the gray areas start) then you have an entirely different argument than we have here now.

yet here we have Ricky telling us this is a "myth", he knows better, he can easily dismiss so many quotes by those people who actually drafted the Constitution. Face it, he's full of crap and has absolutely zero "facts" to stand on, the position of the founding fathers was crystal clear, he simply chooses to cherry pick what suits him and that simply can not be done. If he wants to argue gun control, let him have at it, if he wants to argue about the intent of the 2nd amendment, he's going to lose in a big way!