CSGV on the Original Interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Fresh off the Facebook page of the Cult Coalition to Stop Gun Rights Violence:
CSGV original interpretation 2And this is the insert:
CSGV original interpretation

Ever since Michael Belleiles, it has been clear that we cannot separate Higher Education historians from the rest of the College professorial community in their intent of re-writing history for political purposes.  Lying as the vernacular goes.

But what made me laugh is that I am on the last pages of Washington’s Spies: The Story of America’s First Spy Ring and there s a passage where it mentions that Congress, strapped for cash and in need of having to supply the Continental army with weapons, decided that it would be a good idea to confiscate the guns of the Tories (Pro England inhabitants) living within the Rebel areas and in that way they could kill the bird of supply and at the same time make sure they had antagonistic Loyalists in a relatively docile behavior.  An Army officer was dispatched to start the confiscation of the locals (much to his distaste) and returned shortly with the report that the Tories not only refused to turn in their weapons but that they swore that if they came back again, they would be shot through the head. Congress forego the stupid idea.

I swear that any day now, we are gonna read about a professor swearing up and down about his “research” that showed that only Police and the Military had guns when the Constitution was ratified and that there was a 15 day waiting period with a Background Check and Fingerprints before you could have been issued lead for bullet casting.

11 Replies to “CSGV on the Original Interpretation of the Second Amendment.”

  1. I’d be for going back to 1791. knowing what we know now, we’d have a pretty clear path on what would have to be done in both action and legislature in order to make sure our country would never drift into the filthy waters of the Left and stay firmly anchored in the gentle waters of the Center-Right.




    0



    0
  2. Let’s inject some reality. Going back to 1791:
    – There’s no explicit right to “Stand Your Ground,” but also no recognized – in law or in custom – duty to retreat, either. Along with the common-sense (see what I did there?) understanding that any action not forbidden by law is permissible, you get responsible citizens deciding in the moment what is an appropriate response to violent attack.
    – There’s no right to carry concealed – not because it’s illegal, just distasteful (not to mention 1791-era weaponry is hard to conceal) – but there’s an absolute right (possibly an expectation) to carry openly, at all times, even *gasp* in church!
    – Government inspection, what? In 1791, the Constitution had not been fully ratified yet – the Bill of Rights was required to bring the nay-sayers on board – so effectively there was no one in government to DO the inspections!

    That kills his arguments. Now, also in 1791:
    – No firearm or accessory bans based on class, type, capacity, capability, country of origin, etc. Artillery and warships were primarily owned by private citizens. And none of this “sporting purpose” nonsense, either.
    – No registration of guns or gun owners. Hell, firearms didn’t even HAVE serial numbers!
    – No licensing of gun owners, gun/ammo sellers, gun/ammo manufacturers, component manufacturers, etc.
    – No background check requirement – if a person was dangerous enough to be in jail, he/she was there (or hanged), and if he/she was reformed enough to be released, he/she was reformed enough to purchase a firearm.
    – No knife regulations, nor laws against the ownership or carrying of swords, bows/arrows, hatchets, tomahawks, polearms, etc. (they were not illegal, merely less practical with the advent and prevalence of firearms).

    Actually, the Second Amendment as understood in 1791 is sounding pretty good to me!




    0



    0
  3. I must have made an impression, I got banned from their facebook page, too!
    Wish I knew what I wrote for that to happen. They must have caught up the moms page and compared their blacklists 😉




    0



    0
  4. Here’s something interesting I read somewhere once:

    “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”




    0



    0
  5. Um, “no right to carry”?!? AFAIK, the first laws prohibiting ANYONE but a slave, Indian, serving sailor, or convicted criminal IN CUSTODY from carrying anything he (or she) darned well liked, any way they darned well liked dates to around 1831, in response to Nat Turner’s Rebellion. . .




    0



    0

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .