doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com 2.14 mile shot.

Mr Brown, Keith makes some good points. For example, the 4th Amendment provides for the right of the "people" to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. So is that too, in your opinion, some kind of collective right? Or does each and every Individual American have that right? The answer is extremely clear that it is an individual right. So then, if the Framers used the word "people" in that context to mean an individual right, why would they use it elsewhere to mean a collective right?

It may not be too many guns, LD, but who has them. Jurisdictions all over the world grapple with balancing freedoms with order. Canada has one federal law governing gun regulations. The House of Commons votes on any changes.

If Americans could agree on an answer to your questions, no forever debate. "People" is the catch: what did the Framers mean and in what context with Militia? It's now a constitutional debate, with citizens' fear or favour of appointments to the Court changing laws one way or the other.

Americans as others in democracies choose how they want to live. Canadians are different from Americans because our country developed differently. Americans who support the "originalist" position see my reminding of the constitution as undeniably a living document as an accursed thing.

It's history, and its mention doesn't makes any person anti-gun. That's as crazy as current tearing down of the great monuments of the Confederacy. My sentiment in this respect doesn't make me anti or pro civil rights and slavery. The civil war is history. What next, bulldozing historic sites and national parks?

craig and Jack, my opinion on the Second is in the above to LD and Mr. Gollini. Americans may see all Canadians as "progressives for gun control" because the country through the will of Parliament makes gun regulations without the US ineffable yapping and snapping at each other. I can't vouch for a particular employment of intellect but it falls under progressive, cool and calm, as you said, not from an unaccountable minority of elitists (although youre SC judges didn't just drop out of the air).

king: your insightful, moderate and gentlemanly posts here are much appreciated...yours is a voice of reason...

In 1868, over on the Arickaree Creek, 35-40 miles from where I now live, Colonel Forsyth and a group of about 50 civilian scouts got into a siege type fight with a whole bunch of Indians. Forsyths scouts were all armed with Spencer repeaters. They dug in on the creek bottom to fight. The indians soon learned that the Spencers shot a lot, but not far. On the 2d or 3rd day, the Indians had backed off to a large hill (Squaw hill now) which they felt was safely out of range. A "Very large indian" made a big deal of dropping his pants and mooning the boys in the river bottom. Three of the civilian scouts had kept their "Needle guns", 50/70 Springfields. Forsyth had the three scouts get ready and on a count of 3, fired on the mooner. He fell dead.By my Laser range finder that shot was about 1300 yards. Not a long shot by todays standards but pretty good with a 50/70 with Battle sights. Battle of Beecher Island, is how the fight is now identified

You're doing better than most keeping on thread, LD. Curious. How is the Battle of Beecher Island commemorated: as white encroachment, Indian skirmish opening the country, mention of that remarkable shot---or a bronze tablet with a little of each, an accurate history?

King, your pal Last Dollar couldn't care less about the original topic of this thread. Note that he didn't post here until the subject got turned to your denial of the clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

Last Dollar is well known for disrupting any 2nd Amendment discussion, and this is no exception. He is nearly as big a fraud as you. He pretends to IGNORE me because I recognize and point out that fact. Last Dollar is one of the fools who thinks we should embrace and welcome anti-2nd Amendment guys like you into the "Big Tent" of gun owners so that you can more easily stab us in the back.

Speaking of fraud, here's more of your ignorant denial of the facts... facts that were finally affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 in two separate decisions, and facts that you remain in total denial about:



Suppose you tell us what you think the Framers meant by "People" and what they meant when they said the "Militia" was composed of the whole people. Are you going to tell us that the "whole people" is just the police and military, or the National Guard, as your equally ignorant and equally anti-gun friend Ed Good thinks?



The meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment is not now a Constitutional debate King. It is settled law. Only anti-gun frauds like you refuse to accept that, and continue to attempt to subvert the clear meaning of simple words like "People".

But you have a long history of attempting to undermine our 2nd Amendment rights, don't you King? Here's a post form Pete made on 5/6/07 in his post #38538 where he informed you of the findings of the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary US Senate, 97th Congress second session 2/82.



You acted as if you accepted the education you got in that anti-gun thread you posted, but you have always reverted back to the same crap... not just reporting history, but presenting your own anti-gun, anti 2nd Amendment, and anti-NRA sentiments and rhetoric.

This is your legacy here. This is what I can't wait to post as a memorial to you in Silent Doubles. Please hurry, you dishonest old anti-gunner.

If it's a settled law, Jack, there wouldn't have been all the sky is falling from originalists of Obama arrival or consequences of a Hilary win.

Oh, oh, are we working the ole racism angle back into the picture?