More Than a Quarter-Million Refugees on Food Stamps - 74.2 percent in 2013

[sirs]

As I said before, the historic basis of the US was expansion of White settlements to the West, onto land occupied by Indians, who often took umbrage at the palefaces taking their land and preventing them from hunting on it, and slavery, which tended to result in slaves escaping and not willing to return to the degree that they attacked the patrolers whose job it was to bring them back, and rebellions. Both required the citizens to have access to firearms, which gave them an advantage over the Indians and the escaped slaves.

and Absolutely NONE of that has a damn to do with the purpose and rationale of the 2nd amendment       The ink to the Constitution, and Bill of Rights in particular, was long dry before we started heading out to do the settler chaa chaa with your redskins, nor did it have anything to do with trying to keep your blackies in line.  That's an effort on your part, and like minds, in trying to rewrite history, while ignoring the clear words of the Constitution itself

[Xavier_Onassis]

It has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Damn, you are ignorant.  You don't know shit about this country.

There are people in Zamboanga that know more.

[sirs]

It has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Alas, you have SQUAT facts support that claim.  What you have are selected historical references, and somehow you magically connect that to the basis of the 2nd amendment.  That'd like me claiming that the 1st amendment was specific to teachers who could also preach under the same roof, in some outback location in Tmbukto, Kentucky.  Because x happened, doesn't mean that's why a was the basis of it

What, you are horribly ignorant is, is the history of the Constitution, and why it came about.  NONE of it had squat to do with settlers heading west or slaves.  If it did, there's be actual written reference to that connection.  There is none, because there is no connection.  The wording is cyrstal clear as to why the Constitution came to be......we just won a war against an oppressive Government, and our Founders put in place the legal mechancisms that we should not become one ourselves

[Xavier_Onassis]

What a sorry rant that was!

[sirs]

What a sorry excuse for refuting it, that was     

[Plane]

......., there's be actual written reference to that connection.  .......

  There is something in the Declaration of Independence. Where the crimes of the king are enumerated.

     http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

       This is true too, this is why Tecumseh died in a British officers uniform.

       The Indian wars were one reason that almost everyone needed a good weapon.

         Distrust of government was another one.

           I am not aware of any federal effort to ensure that Slave catchers would be armed, since they were bounty hunters I expect that mostly they armed themselves.

            From our distance slave catching seems like a disgusting practice and its approval in federal law a disgrace.

         But we think of escaping slaves as decent people seeking freedom, the abolitionist POV has won out in the end.

        These people were closer to Denmark Vessey and Nat Turner  than they are to us, and often  regarded disobedient slaves with fear.
         Nor was it universally accepted that Negro people were people. Darwin thought that they were,Louis Agassiz thought that they weren't, this was the state of science at the time.

         Just like now , when a science question is politically important , the quality of the science suffers.

Am I not a man and a brother? (The Offical Medallion of the British Anti-Slavery Society)
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/top-10-letters-human


     

[Plane]

There are people in Zamboanga that know more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamboanga_City

Why wouldn't there be?

[sirs]

With all due respect Plane, .... a vague reference to the Declaration, is hardly a direct connection to why the 2nd amendment of the Constitution.  Our anti 2nd amendment liberal professor may wish there were a connection, and thus make one up....that hardly makes it so, however

[Plane]

   Thanks for the due respect, that is the way to play.

     The best understanding of these documents comes from understanding their context and the intent in which they were written.

       The King absolutely did confiscate a lot of arms , his soldiers were on their way to confiscate more when fighting broke out in Concord.

         The People in general hated this and felt alienation towards the king for it.

          There were more bears in the woods then, and Indian wars and slave uprisings and bandits .

          And Hessians , don't forget the Hessians.

           If the King had succeeded in confiscating all of the muskets and cannon that the people owned his job of governing the colonies might have been a lot easier.

         Notice how alarmed the writers of the declaration of independence were at the deal the king made with Canada.

      If the King had of won, Canada might have a border with Mexico.

      Having guns made a lot of difference in how well our people could be bent to the kings will.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Second Amendment was not designed to arm slave patrols, just to allow them to arm themselves without government interference.]

The British disarmed some  Colonials, and surely some patriots disarmed British partisans. Neither side had a sterling code of ethics. It was a war.

[Plane]

................. and surely some patriots disarmed British partisans............

   


   Oh?

   I know about some that were shot and some that were exiled , who got disarmed?
 

[sirs]

The Second Amendment was not designed to arm slave patrols, just to allow them to arm themselves without government interference.]

That was neither its intention nor function. It merely was happenstance

[sirs]

Thanks for the due respect, that is the way to play.

I respond to that how I am treated

     The best understanding of these documents comes from understanding their context and the intent in which they were written.

       The King absolutely did confiscate a lot of arms , his soldiers were on their way to confiscate more when fighting broke out in Concord.

         The People in general hated this and felt alienation towards the king for it.

          There were more bears in the woods then, and Indian wars and slave uprisings and bandits .

          And Hessians , don't forget the Hessians.

           If the King had succeeded in confiscating all of the muskets and cannon that the people owned his job of governing the colonies might have been a lot easier.

         Notice how alarmed the writers of the declaration of independence were at the deal the king made with Canada.

      If the King had of won, Canada might have a border with Mexico.

      Having guns made a lot of difference in how well our people could be bent to the kings will.

Pretty much the point I've been making all along.  The intentions of the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with settlers or slaves, and everything to do with trying to prevent the very thing they just fought a war over, an oppressive Government (or Monarchy, if you want to use the more accurate term of the time), gaining more and more power, at the expense of more and more freedoms from its citizenry

[Xavier_Onassis]

Yeah, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, NONE of them had a clue that there were savage Indians and all manner of lawless people of every race that posed a threat in the sparsely populated parts of the country. They were ENTIRELY UNAWARE that a majority of the population of this country were near subsistence farmers, and that the wealthiest Plantations were staffed b slaves that did not enjoy being slaves and  dreamed of escaping./

They were, however entirely aware that in 2015 there would be a bunch of fanatic gun nuts led by a has been actor that would yearn to own entire arsenals of firearms that had not yet been invented that could pop off dozens of bullets as fast as the   shooter could pull the trigger. The were keenly aware that suburban gun nuts thought that they should own as many guns as they could afford so they could overthrow the government   when it started harassing the people with black helicopters  and drones.

[sirs]

Yeah, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, NONE of them had a clue that there were savage Indians and all manner of lawless people of every race that posed a threat in the sparsely populated parts of the country.

Of course they did.  That however still wasn't the foundation, nor intention, for the 2nd amendment to the Constitution of the U.S.