Notice also the not-so-subtle attempt to lump "gun nuts"

[Xavier_Onassis]

It does not matter whether there is anything about hunting or slavecatching in the Bill of Rights or not. The reasons for not banning guns from the citizens were known and obvious to all. Nearly everyone in colonial times went hunting or bought game from those who did. The did not mention slavecatching because it was a matter of  emotional contention between the slave states and the free states. This got so bad that the House banned all discussion of slavery as part of the rules.

It was bad form to even use the word "slave": the proper words were "servants" and "field hands". Only those in the business of selling slaves used the word "slave".

There is no reason to be subtle about how the gun nuts are a bunch of idiotic jackasses than do not understand that the more guns there are, the more people are going to get shot. 

[sirs]

It does not matter whether there is anything about hunting or slavecatching in the Bill of Rights or not.

You wish.  IT ABSOLUTELY MATTERS.  What's not there....DOESN'T EXIST.  You can use your imagination to make up anything you want.  That doesn't make it so, or even truthful.  The Constitution is the law of the land.   The reasons for not banning guns, was clear in the language of the Constitution, and specifically, the Bill of Rights.  And those words were backed up by the Federalist papers.  It wasn't some made up leftist reason about hunting or slaves/servants/field hands.  It was the concrete reasons made up by the Founders, which was specific to the limitations the Federal Government could exercise over its citizenry.

So, the idea that the 2nd amendment's primary function was to deal with slaves/servants/field hands & hunting is missing the most intregral component in validating that idea......THE ACTUAL WORDS.  The only idiots here are the ones that insist on ignoring both history, and simple-to-read language.  Ironic for a language professor, isn't it

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Founding Fathers clearly added the Second Amendment so you could take your guns to Church.

[sirs]

Not written, so again, that wasn't the reason either.  Try again

[Xavier_Onassis]

You are not an expert or a judge. You are a drooling ijit. No one needs to seek your silly approval.

[sirs]

Nor do I seek anyone's approval.  Though obviously when discussing anything Constitution, when compared to you, I'm apparently a Rhodes Scholar.  But its nice to know when it's apparent that your quiver is empty.  All that you have left is 2nd grade insults.  I thank you for the validation

[Xavier_Onassis]

No, you are not any sort of expert. You are an obsessed loon.

[sirs]

Wash...rinse...repeat.  Never said I was an expert.  Merely compared to you, apparently I am

[Xavier_Onassis]

Apparently, in your own opinion.

The more guns there are, the more people will get shot.

[sirs]

Apparently, in this country, the facts refute your opinion, in that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, the more lives saved.

Deal with it

[Xavier_Onassis]

I deal with it by once more pointing out that it fucking is not true.

[sirs]

Your opinion on that proclamation is debunked by the facts, I'm afraid

[Xavier_Onassis]

sirs facts are not actual accurate facts.

[sirs]

Of course they're not mine.  They belong to the FBI.  Your beef is with them apparently

[Xavier_Onassis]

My beef is that you make up shit and claim that it is somehow accurate.

The FBI does not get into children shooting themselves and each other. Not all shootings are due to gun crime. Many are due to gun stupidity, gun accidents, gun suicides. hunting mishaps.