Dan Carpenter: We love our guns -- and have the deaths to show for it

May 11, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Indianapolis Star

Law enforcers at the city and federal levels have taken the offensive against rampant gun violence in several Indianapolis neighborhoods.

Comments
21 - 40 of 223 Comments Last updated Nov 16, 2013

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jules Verne envisioned a lot of things that came true later on, but they were considered fantasies at the time. The founders were pragmatic; they did not write legislation for what they considered pipe-dreams. It's also why the constitution was written with the ability to be interpreted and amended. They never intended even basic rights to overrule public safety.

The point about gangs is that it's OBVIOUS that guns don't keep you safe.
FormerParatrooper wrote:
<quoted text>
The Founders were not ignorant to technology. They were well read on history, military and civil. The were inventors, statesman, scientist and educated. In the time before the Colonies revolted, there were muskets rifles with revolving barrels being worked with. They were not practical until the advent on the percussion cap, and even then not reliable. The firearm had progressed from bamboo tubes to naval cannons. An example of foresight is Ben Franklin discussing the mobilization of soldiers from the sky.
To say they could not foresee the advances of firearm technology is unlikely.
Self defense is a natural right, not a manufactured right. The use of firearms were considered an extension of that right.
The various Militia Acts of the time did require firearm ownership. Exemptions were to groups such as the Quakers. They were not always enforced, there was more common sense in that time.
The issue of registration has a history of leading to confiscation, that is the reason it is opposed.
Gang wars? That is a ridiculous comparison to the responsible ownership of firearms.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wow...opinions not backed by the constitution, from people who weren't founders.

Yawn.

"Mankind have been divided into three classes, Shepherds, Husbandmen, and Artificers..." LOL
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"As far as the whole body the people are necessary to the general defence, they ought to be armed; but the law ought to require more than is necessary; for that be a just cause of complaint."--Mr. Fitzsimons,[Pg. 1852]
"... Mr. Jackson said, that he was of opinion that the people of America would never consent to be deprived of the privilege of carrying arms. Though it may prove burthensome to some individuals to be obliged to arm themselves, yet it would not be so considered when the advantages were justly estimated."[Pg. 1852]
"In a Republic every man ought to be a soldier, and prepared to resist tyranny and usurpation, as well as invasion, and to prevent the greatest of all evils--a standing army. Mankind have been divided into three classes, Shepherds, Husbandmen, and Artificers--of which the last make the worst militia; but as the arts and sciences are the sources of great wealth to the community, which may excite the jealousy and avarice of neighbors, this class ought to be peculiarly qualified to defend themselves and repel invasions; and as this country is rising fast in manufactures, the arts and sciences, and from her fertile soil may expect great affluence, she ought to be able to protect that and her liberties from within herself ..."--Mr. Jackson [Pg. 1853]
"There are so few freemen in the United States who are not able to provide themselves arms and accoutrements, that any provision on the part of the United States is unnecessary and improper. He had no doubt that the people, if left to themselves, would provide arms as are necessary, without inconvenience or complaint; but if they are furnished by the United States, the public arsenals would soon be exhausted--and experience shows, that public property of this kind, from the careless manner in which many persons use it, is soon lost."--Mr. Sherman, Dec. 16, 1790.[Pg. 1854]
"He asked by what means minors were to themselves with the requisite articles? Many of them are apprentices. If you put arms into their hands, they will make good soldiers; but how are they to procure them? It is said, if they are supplied by the United States the property will be lost; if this is provided against, every objection may be obviated. He then offered an addition to the motion, providing for the return of the arms to the commanding officer."--Mr. Vining [Pg. 1855]
"Mr. Wadsworth apologized for detaining the attention of the committee a moment, while he asked the gentlemen who favored the motion what was the extent of their wishes? The motion at first appeared to be in favor of poor men, who are unable to purchase a firelock; but now it seems minors and apprentices are to be provided for. Is there a man in this House who would wish to see so large a proportion of the community, perhaps one-third armed by the United States, and liable to be disarmed by them? Nothing would tend more to excite suspicion, and rouse a jealousy dangerous to the Union. With respect to apprentices, every man knew that they were liable to this tax, and they were taken under the idea of being provided for by their masters; as to minors, their parents or guardians would prefer furnishing them with arms themselves, to depending on the United States when they knew they were liable to having them reclaimed." [Pg. 1855-56]....
- Annals of Congress. THE DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES; WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING IMPORTANT STATE PAPERS AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, AND ALL THE LAWS OF A PUBLIC NATURE
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2013/05/t...

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

From the official constitution:
"The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution."

No dismissal of clauses you find distasteful, fucwit.
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you insist on proving your ignorance, and ignoring the FACTS? OK, get ready for an education:
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION or ABUSE of its powers, that further DECLARATORY and RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added: And as EXTENDING the ground of PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the Government, will BEST ENSURE the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, ALL, or any of which Articles, when RATIFIED by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be VALID to ALL INTENTS and PURPOSES, as PART of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Amendment II
DECLARATORY clause;
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
RESTRICTIVE clause;
the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, shall NOT be infringed.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

From your own quote: "the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia"--Only later was it expanded to include self-defense by the SCOTUS. They do not discount the militia portion.

BTW--felons cannot own firearms, yet still have the right to self-defense. Explain.
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment to use arms in defense of so valuable a blessing [as liberty], on which all the good and evil of life depends; is clearly my opinion; yet Arms...should be the last resort."
- George Washington, 1789 letter to George Mason.[The True George Washington, 10th Ed. By Paul Leicester Ford.]
"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."
- Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court.[As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]
"The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation -- of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice."
- James Wilson,'Of the Natural Rights of Individuals', 1790-1792 (Signed the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, Congressman, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention and U.S. Supreme Court Justice).
"From among the rights retained by our policy, we have selected those of self defence or bearing arms, of conscience, and of free inquiry, for two purposes; one, to shew the vast superiority of our policy, in being able to keep natural rights necessary for liberty and happiness, out of the hands of governments; the other, to shew that this ability is the effect of its principles, and beyond the reach of Mr. Adams’s system, or of any other, unable to reserve to the people, and to withhold from governments, a variety of rights."
- John Taylor, Revolutionary Soldier and U.S. Senator,(1792 – 94, 1803, 1822 – 24).[An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States: Section the Sixth; THE GOOD MORAL PRINCIPLES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES,(1814).]
Would you like for me to continue? For I can completely shred your mindless 'theory' if you'd like.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
May 17, 2013
 
cpeter1313 wrote:
Jules Verne envisioned a lot of things that came true later on, but they were considered fantasies at the time. The founders were pragmatic; they did not write legislation for what they considered pipe-dreams. It's also why the constitution was written with the ability to be interpreted and amended. They never intended even basic rights to overrule public safety.
The point about gangs is that it's OBVIOUS that guns don't keep you safe.
<quoted text>
GAME OVER, traitor-troll:

Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet

A couple of new studies reveal the gun-control hypesters’ worst nightmare…more people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing. What crackpots came up with these conclusions? One set of statistics was compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice. The other was reported by the Pew Research Center.

According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s.

And where did the bad people who did the shooting get most of their guns? Were those gun show “loopholes” responsible? Nope....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05...

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
May 17, 2013
 
cpeter1313 wrote:
From your own quote: "the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia"--Only later was it expanded to include self-defense by the SCOTUS. They do not discount the militia portion.
BTW--felons cannot own firearms, yet still have the right to self-defense. Explain.
<quoted text>
It was a PREEXISTING NATURAL RIGHT. And felons CAN, and DO own firearms. Look up the conviction rate from the BATF/FBI. They very selectively enforce the [UNCONSTITUTIONAL]'laws'. Because any good lawyer will blow their perverse 'case' right out the window.

And ALL 'gun control laws' WILL be disappearing very soon. The treasonous USurpreme Kourt finally admitted it was a "right" in Heller. Then next admitted it was the right of ALL American citizens in McDonald. And very soon the Kourt will be FORCED to address; "shall NOT be infringed". And the historical FACTS prove that it "shall NOT be infringed".

One of the main original reasons the 2nd amendment was DEMANDED. Was because the perverse government of Massachusetts had disarmed those that had participated in Shay's Rebellion. Which caused patriots from all the surrounding states to come running with arms in their hands. And FORCED the perverse Mass. gov. to overturn their repugnant 'law'. But you sure won't here about THAT in any of the communist-socialist skhools here in the U.S.

"The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."--Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787 letter to William S. Smith.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
May 17, 2013
 
cpeter1313 wrote:
From the official constitution:
"The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution."
No dismissal of clauses you find distasteful, fucwit.
<quoted text>
Are you deliberately this ignorant, or does it just come naturally to you?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

GunShow1 wrote:
Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet
32,000+ fatalities, GayDavy.

Automobile sales soar... yet automobile fatalities drop.

Wipe your chin, dear.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a PREEXISTING NATURAL RIGHT. And felons CAN, and DO own firearms.
People like you sell them their weapons, GayDavy.

People like us are going to stop you, Shug.

Put you in jail and take away your toys.

Then you can post your spam from jail, eh?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

GunShow1 wrote:
The treasonous USurpreme Kourt finally admitted it was a "right" in Heller.
This is what they said...in the Heller decision:
JusticeScalia wrote:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Justice Scalia
Writing for the majority of the real Supreme Court
Based on the real US Constitution
This century
[United States v.] Heller... 2008

{click}
Wipe your chin, dear...

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
May 17, 2013
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
32,000+ fatalities, GayDavy.
Automobile sales soar... yet automobile fatalities drop.
Wipe your chin, dear.
"the right to keep and drive automobiles" is NOT secured in We The People's Constitution, traitor-troll. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms IS however.

Take a hike, you cowardly and murderous genocidal traitor-troll.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
May 17, 2013
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what they said...in the Heller decision:
<quoted text>
Justice Scalia
Writing for the majority of the real Supreme Court
Based on the real US Constitution
This century
[United States v.] Heller... 2008
{click}
Wipe your chin, dear...
Doesn't overrule the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, traitor-troll.

"...But great complaint is made of the war preparations of South Carolina. Can any one be serious in saying that there is no cause for this? A State surrounded by military force denied the right to prepare to meet it? Take care, Mr. Speaker this is alarming doctrine to the States! In vain the constitution allows the privilege to the citizen to bear arms for his protection, if, when he rubs up his musket and furnishes it with a fiint, he runs the risk of becoming a traitor! Sir, preparation is no force; as well may you tell me that the gentleman who sits before me with his sword cane, and which, no doubt, he carries for his honest defence, is obliged to run it through the body of the first man he meets, because he has thought proper to be ready for the assaults of either insolence or avarice. I well remember, sir, my own State had once to make warlike preparation against the usurpations of this same Government, and I should like to see the man who would dare to say she meant any thing more than the lawful defence of her undoubted rights. Against this Union she never meditated the slightest movement; but against the unconstitutional acts ot its Government, she did plant herself upon her arms, and hurled defiance in the very teeth of your usurping laws. What Georgia has done in good faith against the designs of arbitrary power, I am willing to accord to other States, without imputing bad motives to the act."

-[Judge] Augustin S. Clayton, Feb. 27, 1833.[REGISTER OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS, COMPRISING THE LEADING DEBATES AND INCIDENTS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF THE TWENTY-SECOND CONGRESS: TOGETHER WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING IMPORTANT STATE PAPERS AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, AND THE LAWS, OF A PUBLIC NATURE, ENACTED DURING THE SESSION: WITH A COPIOUS INDEX TO THE WHOLE. VOLUME IX. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY GALES AND SEATON. 1833. Pg. 1834](Judge Augustin S. Clayton, served in both the Georgia House of Representatives and Georgia Senate, and then a representative of Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1831–1835).

Judge AND lawmaker, traitor-troll.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Prove a causal relationship. Most serial killers drink coffee; if coffee sales drop, does it cause fewer such killings?
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
GAME OVER, traitor-troll:
Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet
A couple of new studies reveal the gun-control hypesters’ worst nightmare…more people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing. What crackpots came up with these conclusions? One set of statistics was compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice. The other was reported by the Pew Research Center.
According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s.
And where did the bad people who did the shooting get most of their guns? Were those gun show “loopholes” responsible? Nope....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05...

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Where are "natural rights" written down?

So you're a moron who thinks convicted felons should carry guns?

Shays rebellion was about debt collection, not guns, you moron:
http://www.ushistory.org/us/15a.asp
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a PREEXISTING NATURAL RIGHT. And felons CAN, and DO own firearms. Look up the conviction rate from the BATF/FBI. They very selectively enforce the [UNCONSTITUTIONAL]'laws'. Because any good lawyer will blow their perverse 'case' right out the window.
And ALL 'gun control laws' WILL be disappearing very soon. The treasonous USurpreme Kourt finally admitted it was a "right" in Heller. Then next admitted it was the right of ALL American citizens in McDonald. And very soon the Kourt will be FORCED to address; "shall NOT be infringed". And the historical FACTS prove that it "shall NOT be infringed".
One of the main original reasons the 2nd amendment was DEMANDED. Was because the perverse government of Massachusetts had disarmed those that had participated in Shay's Rebellion. Which caused patriots from all the surrounding states to come running with arms in their hands. And FORCED the perverse Mass. gov. to overturn their repugnant 'law'. But you sure won't here about THAT in any of the communist-socialist skhools here in the U.S.
"The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."--Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787 letter to William S. Smith.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

This is the official transcript used by this country. Accuracy is not the same as ignorant. I don't know what gun cult you're getting your quotes from, but They don't get to decide what the constitution says.
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you deliberately this ignorant, or does it just come naturally to you?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The SCOTUS interprets the constitution, not congress, you, or your little cult.
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't overrule the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, traitor-troll.
"...But great complaint is made of the war preparations of South Carolina. Can any one be serious in saying that there is no cause for this? A State surrounded by military force denied the right to prepare to meet it? Take care, Mr. Speaker this is alarming doctrine to the States! In vain the constitution allows the privilege to the citizen to bear arms for his protection, if, when he rubs up his musket and furnishes it with a fiint, he runs the risk of becoming a traitor! Sir, preparation is no force; as well may you tell me that the gentleman who sits before me with his sword cane, and which, no doubt, he carries for his honest defence, is obliged to run it through the body of the first man he meets, because he has thought proper to be ready for the assaults of either insolence or avarice. I well remember, sir, my own State had once to make warlike preparation against the usurpations of this same Government, and I should like to see the man who would dare to say she meant any thing more than the lawful defence of her undoubted rights. Against this Union she never meditated the slightest movement; but against the unconstitutional acts ot its Government, she did plant herself upon her arms, and hurled defiance in the very teeth of your usurping laws. What Georgia has done in good faith against the designs of arbitrary power, I am willing to accord to other States, without imputing bad motives to the act."
-[Judge] Augustin S. Clayton, Feb. 27, 1833.[REGISTER OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS, COMPRISING THE LEADING DEBATES AND INCIDENTS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF THE TWENTY-SECOND CONGRESS: TOGETHER WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING IMPORTANT STATE PAPERS AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, AND THE LAWS, OF A PUBLIC NATURE, ENACTED DURING THE SESSION: WITH A COPIOUS INDEX TO THE WHOLE. VOLUME IX. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY GALES AND SEATON. 1833. Pg. 1834](Judge Augustin S. Clayton, served in both the Georgia House of Representatives and Georgia Senate, and then a representative of Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1831–1835).
Judge AND lawmaker, traitor-troll.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
May 17, 2013
 
cpeter1313 wrote:
Where are "natural rights" written down?
So you're a moron who thinks convicted felons should carry guns?
Shays rebellion was about debt collection, not guns, you moron:
http://www.ushistory.org/us/15a.asp
<quoted text>
The DISARMING of those that participated in Shay's, half-wit.

"The great numbers of people in Massachusetts* and the neighbouring States who avow the principle of annihilating all debts public and private. The probability of those men combining themselves into an armed body for the purpose of executing their designs. The dreadful consequences which may be expected from wicked and ambitious men, possessing the command of a force to overturn, not only the forms, but the principles of the present constitutions, require the wisest councils and most vigorous measures on the part of Government.

"I conceive my Official duty obliges me to inform Congress, that it is my firm conviction, arising from the information I have received, that unless the present commotions are checked with a strong hand, that an armed tyranny may be established on the ruins of the present constitutions. The insurgents will not probably longer delay the execution of their designs, those systems can be formed and means found for that purpose."- Journals of the Continental Congress, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1786.

The Shay's Insurrection, "These the Legislature could not infringe, without bringing upon themselves the detestation of mankind, and the frowns of Heaven", Jan. 12, 1787

Rufus King to Henry Lee?, "and in every Respect Treat the Citizens in arms...", Feb. 10, 1787

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, "and shall obtain an order for the re-delivery of such arms", Feb. 16, 1787

Journals of the Continental Congress, "...impolitic and not to be reconciled with the genius of free Govts...", Feb. 19. 1787

Letters of Delegates to Congress, "...An Act to disarm and Disfranchise for three years...", Feb. 27th, 1787

Letters of Delegates to Congress, "...this act has created more universal disgust than any other of Government...", March 6, 1787

Journals of the Continental Congress, "That a large body of armed insurgents, did make their appearance...", March 13, 1787

A Proclamation, "and of being again renewed to the arms of their country, and once more enjoying the rights of free citizens of the Commonwealth", June 15, 1787

James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, "a great proportion of the offenders chuse rather to risk the consequences of their treason, than submit to the conditions annexed to the amnesty", March 19, 1787

The Debates in the Federal Convention, "...let the citizens of Massachusetts be disarmed.... It would be regarded as a system of despotism.", Aug. 23, 1787

Take a hike, you woefully undereducated traitor-troll.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
May 17, 2013
 
cpeter1313 wrote:
The SCOTUS interprets the constitution, not congress, you, or your little cult.
<quoted text>
Wrong AGAIN, traitor-troll. The Constitution needs NO interpretation. It is explained clause by clause in the Federalist Papers. Th court is charged with interpreting the "LAWS" made in pursuance of the Constitution. In order to ensure that the legislative branches keep within the BOUNDS of the Constitution.

Go back to school, traitor-troll.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
May 17, 2013
 
cpeter1313 wrote:
Where are "natural rights" written down?
So you're a moron who thinks convicted felons should carry guns?
Shays rebellion was about debt collection, not guns, you moron:
http://www.ushistory.org/us/15a.asp
<quoted text>
You really are brainless:

Declaration of Independence

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the >>>>>>> >>>Laws of Nature and of Nature's God<<<<<< <<<< entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...."

"...Two questions of a very delicate nature present themselves on this occasion: 1. On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it? 2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it?

"The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the >>>>>>> >>>transcendent law of nature and of nature's God<<<<<< <<<<, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed. Perhaps, also, an answer may be found without searching beyond the principles of the compact itself...."

- James Madison, Federalist No. 43

Afforded Us by God and Nature
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2013/04/s...

Agreed to Found Our Rights on the Laws of Nature
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2013/04/a...

Which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/p/which-l...

Go away, woefully blind traitor-troll.

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
May 17, 2013
 
cpeter1313 wrote:
Prove a causal relationship. Most serial killers drink coffee; if coffee sales drop, does it cause fewer such killings?
<quoted text>
NO PROBLEM:

United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2011 in relation to Gun Control Laws/NICS Background checks

Sources: Population Figures; Disaster Center:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.h...

NICS Figures; FBI:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

(Important note: The number of background checks does not equate to the number of firearms sold. As multiple guns; both Long Guns, and Hand Guns, can be purchased during a NICS background check).

The statistics from the chart were gathered from the Disaster Center referenced above. To which were added the last two columns on the right. Which contain information concerning U.S. gun law enactment periods. As well as crime rate variances, and finally; N.I.C.S.,(National Instant Criminal Background Check), numbers,

As it is plain to see, crime rates started a dramatic rise after the 1968 Gun Control Act. During the years 1981-84 crime rates either leveled out or dropped. From 1985-91 the overall crime rate again rose sharply. During the year 1992 the crime rates again leveled. While in 1993 most crime rates had fallen. Which fails to explain the justification for the Unconstitutional “Brady Bill”.

The 'Gun Control' laws that have been unconstitutionally passed have also had an effect on Firearm sales in the United States. According to National Shooting Sports Foundation,(NSSF), and FBI NICS records. Firearms sales have increased by 54.1% between 2002-2011*. Thus making the claim by John Lott in his book; “More Guns, Less Crime”, a statistical FACT.

'Gun Control laws' also seem to be providing an impetus for increased firearms sales. Which is hardly what the 'gun control' crowd desired, I'm sure. That is of course, unless they are stock holders in firearms related businesses....

*- See: http://www.nssf.org/share/images/PR_NICS_Adju...

http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2013/04/u...

Go away, woefully blind traitor-troll.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••