Bullshit, David. It's got nothing to do with what the Consitution was originallhy,
was and IS
the deal, the social and political contract, that has validity.
It is shocking that u allege that:
"It's got nothing to do with what the Consitution was originallhy [sic]".
U r very radical and u exhort political chaos
, based on fraud.
since you guys on;y follow what you think one small segment of the founding fathers believed,
and completely disregard the wide spectrum of different views of the founding fathers as to what they were doing/
That is factually baseless nonsense; untruthful.
U r radical in your rejection of historical fact, Jack.
The laws about carrying guns to church dated from a century and a half before the Constitution was written.
They were largely for protection against Indian attacks,
Yes; some problems with the French too.
is your POINT
not surprising considering the barbarous ways the colonials treated the Indians.
Yes, and reciprocally vice-versa
There were very few Indian attacks in Philadelphia in the 1790s.
And from the passage of those laws they had to keep fining people because they didn't bring their guns to church.
Yes, unless thay brought them to Church.
Thay ofen had marksmanship
competitions, with prizes, after Church.
James Madison (who wrote the Bill of Rights) operated some of them.
That was also true for centuries in England.
They also, I might add, did in fact practice gun control.
The same people who passed those laws in the 1630s and 1640s made it a crime to sell guns to Indians.
So it was a very selective [ ?? ] right.
Very?? The exception of not committing TREASON
, u characterize as "very selective right"??
Jack, that was NOT
gun control: THAT WAS PROHIBITING TREASON
Selling guns to the Indians was aid n comfort to the enemy and complicity in their waging war against us.
You will also notice, if you go back and read those laws and regulations, that the guns were for use in the militia, which took the place of a standing army in colonial times (as it does NOT today), and the militia was very closely regulated by colonial government, most basically on the town level. It was NOT just some yahoo wanted a gun and got one--people had specific duties to the militia.
U confuse and conflate concepts of "the militia". There were government boys
called "selected militia"
an example of which is in Article I Section 8, subsections 15 and 16.
Private militia were called "well regulated militia".
Examples of those existed thru out America, as needed,
the same as volunteer fire dept.s, or the same as the Free French
in World War II, unbeholden to any government.
The Mormons had their own militia.
Thru out the Mid East now, there are many Moslem religion-based militia.
When we have had race-riots in American cities, ofen
merchants formed their own private de facto
militia because the police fled.
Arguably, the fellows on United Airlines Flight 93
were a well
regulated militia when thay counterattacked the Moslems on 9/11/1,
tho its likely that thay were too busy to ponder intangible definitions,
but thay were free and on their own, and thus
thay were well regulated militia (private militia).
The key criterion of a well regulated militia
is that it be free
of any taint
of interference from any government.
That frase was also sometimes used to indicate well-trained militia,
well-disciplined, practiced in battle tactics against Indians, Englishmen or any enemy.
Not the case today.
believe that a change in the facts AMENDS
without the procedures of Article 5 ?
That is a novel vu.
We got screwed out of our liberty
because of a change in ambient facts ?????????
I don 't think so.