Man who died in accident on Ind. 67 allegedly carjacked vehicle
read more recent story comments Reader comments| nobodyimportant Friday, January 11, 2013: 8:53 am More from nobodyimportant  | Danny, your attempt to re-write history can't go unnoticed. The only and I mean only reason that the Bill of Rights with amendments 1-10 immediately followed the approval of the Constitution was that deals were made in order to get the Constitution ratified. Without those deals, the Constitution was dead on arrival. The anti-federalists, let by Madison demanded limitations of the national government. He and they were assured that amendments would follow to secure their support. Fresh in the minds of the framers, especially those from the New England states, was the first attempts to organize a national militia, which became the Continental Army. There were so many British Loyalists in that militia that people feared it would become the arm of King George. It was not long before a second national militia was created, banning loyalists of the King. Finally, it is unimaginable that we could take the 2nd amendment, which was, no matter what you say to paint a different picture, a statement clearly intended to appease anti-federalists of that day, and justify private ownership of modern tools of war. State militias today are not self-armed, not under the control of the state, and have no duties except for those ordered by the President of the United States. It is a time we had a 21st century debate over a 21st century issue that could not have even remotely been envisioned by colonial-era men. I don't know of anyone who wants to take away hunting rifles and shotguns. But there can be no sane argument for the need of a semi-automatic high caliber weapon capable of 3-4 shots per second or a pistol with a 30 round clip. Background checks and records of gun transactions can be implemented. The legal sale of guns to felons and the mentally ill can be stopped. All of these things can be done without violating the 2nd amendment. Congress has the power to define "arms". |
| Lassiter Friday, January 11, 2013: 9:49 am More from Lassiter | The Washington Post? LOL |
| Danny Stewart Friday, January 11, 2013: 10:00 am More from Danny Stewart | All I can say is WOW! sad, very sad at how little people know about our history.Let alone how little they understand what guns mean to our personal security and our liberty. So very sad indeed. |
| Lassiter Friday, January 11, 2013: 4:08 pm More from Lassiter | As rampant as lying and deceit are in our country, coming from media, government and everywhere you look it seems a better debate to be had on criminalizing dishonesty. seems to be the norm in this country that if you repeat a lie over and over enough it becomes the truth. Of course an honesty law would NEVER pass in Washington because there would be nobody left. |
| Danny Stewart Friday, January 11, 2013: 8:26 pm More from Danny Stewart | Well, I see that Nobody still hasn't figured it out yet that his history is completely wrong. At least he does make for some good comedy relief. |
| Danny Stewart Friday, January 11, 2013: 8:38 pm More from Danny Stewart | BTW, Madison was a federalist, Henry was the anti-federalist. He authored the anti-federalists papers just as Madison was one of the writers of the Federalists papers. |
| nobodyimportant Friday, January 11, 2013: 10:48 pm More from nobodyimportant | Danny, I stand corrected on Madison's party alliance. I plugged his name into the wrong sentence and did,'t read it back before submitting. Nonetheless, the issues were as I stated them. The Bill of Rights was an appeasement to the anti-federalists so that enough votes would be there to accept the Constitution. A state's militia was a front-line necessity of that day. It is not today and the individual man does not need to privately own weapons of war to be ready to repel invasions. |
| nobodyimportant Saturday, January 12, 2013: 1:05 am More from nobodyimportant | If the 2nd amendment was meant to give a wholesale right of the citizenry to own any weapon of choice, the opening phrase of that amendment would have been unnecessary. |
| 20 comments found | |
| Previous | 1 | 2 | |
Add a comment
Posting comments on this web site requires you to be logged in. • Create your account• Log in to your account
» more
TABLE OF CONTENTS »
NEWS
Today
Obituaries
Local
Police
Court news
Weather
Business
Property transfers
Area salaries & stats
Education
State
Nation/World
Photo galleries
Videos
SPORTS
Sports
MD-T sports
IU sports blog
Martinsville
Mooresville
Decatur Central
Eminence
Indian Creek
Monrovia
Tabernacle Christian
Fantasy racing league
BLOGS
All blogs
Quit Smoking...Do It
Sci-Fi Sojourns
The Hoosier Scoop
Hoosier Wine Cellar
Gaming Guru
Mellenblog
