Really? You've never seen the postings here that claim the entire Constitution is an absolute and nothing should be interpreted? Do you think that list of quotes would have no disclaimers if the speakers were questioned?
His intentions were not out of spite... He wanted to send them back to Africa as he felt even after slavery was abolished the black man would still always be at a great disadvantage in this country due to the roots of slavery. In the end he was met with enormous opposition and eventually let the matter go. Or Lee surrendered and 5 days later he got shot. It was obviously political to bring balance to North and South people, I don't know the complete story but I know most blacks that wanted to leave left to Africa and settled in the country known as Liberia and those that wanted to stay did. Certainly if the plan to send off blacks to Africa became a legit thing we would have had a difficult world. Africa would be a shit show as those that were freed for the US and left I read enslaved the natives over there. There is definitely a ton of grey area in our history.
Okay going back to guns and original topic... I agree in the article's key points on the amendment's translation. The Second Amendment consists of just one sentence: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today, scholars debate its bizarre comma placement, trying to make sense of the various clauses, and politicians routinely declare themselves to be its “strong supporters.” But in the grand sweep of American history, this sentence has never been among the most prominent constitutional provisions. In fact, for two centuries it was largely ignored. The amendment grew out of the political tumult surrounding the drafting of the Constitution, which was done in secret by a group of mostly young men, many of whom had served together in the Continental Army. Having seen the chaos and mob violence that followed the Revolution, these “Federalists” feared the consequences of a weak central authority. They produced a charter that shifted power—at the time in the hands of the states—to a new national government. “Anti-Federalists” opposed this new Constitution. The foes worried, among other things, that the new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon. On June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities. There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856#ixzz4ApfjMhUk
That article is really reaching. There are numerous texts that show their clear support of private gun ownership. I posted a link earlier to many such quotes.
The buy back in Australia was for semi-automatic rimfire rifles and shotguns as well as pump action shot guns and semi-automatic military rifles. in 2003 they made handguns with a caliber higher than .38 illegal and they made snubnose pistols with barrels less than 120mm or 100mm for semi-automatic models illegal and bought those back as well. Hunting rifles and normal handguns that do not have the capacity to pierce body armor are legal. That's where we should be in the US too.
They're all a bunch of bought & sold, racist special interest crooks, both sides. Called this from day one: Hillary Clinton's the designated shoo-in. - Democratic National Committee and Debbie "Tweed" Wasserman-Schultz in particular greased the skids for Hillary from the get go under the guise of ___________ (list your altruistic "party of the people" bullshit here). - The Trumpster on the other hand, having a fractured relationship with the RNC and no real 'organized machine' in place eventually taking his "Washington outsider" rhetoric one step too far--and fatally stepping on his dick in the process--with the Mexican judge reference among other gaffes, which: - Further emboldens an already partisan 66.67% of the mainstream media to even more outwardly carry water for her (much like they do for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.). Possibly the worst pairing since Nixon-Humphrey in '68. Sarah Palin with a dick vs. Huey Long with a dildo. "why hello Elliot......Sheldon......."
I'm all for repealing or amending the 2nd amendment and the criminalization of the possession of certain firearms. No one has ever justified a legitimate need to own a semi-automatic rifle or machine gun to me. Ever. Every time a toddler shoots himself in the face or a mentally ill young white male shoots up a school, workplace, or movie theater, I get angry that we just accept these fatalities as a cost of "freedom". That "freedom" is based upon an antiquated justification that has no place in modern society. P.S. Obama never came for your guns and/or little white babies, and neither is Hilary. There is no tyranical government - only people who refuse to play by the rules and use that as an excuse for doing so.
Just because there is no tyrannical government today, doesn't mean there won't be one tomorrow. How short sighted of you. I use a semi-automatic rifle to shoot coyotes that could attack my children or dogs. You think I need to justify that to you? lol And Hillary thinks we should consider mandatory gun buybacks and making many common guns illegal, or at least that's what she says. So your thoughts on her stance don't seem correct to me.
