Capitol Hill Blue Forums Capitol Hill Blue Opinions CHB Columnists Time for serious control of guns and those who promote their sale, illegal use

Red Flag laws make all of that possible...something must have happened when he was ten that twisted him, possibly at that school. Shooters like this one fit a certain profile that educators could have seen. Schools don't need more cops, they need more psychologists and sociologists. Teachers don't need to be armed with weapons, they need to be armed with the education to spot these troubled kids and the resources to do something about it when they do.

There were no rights to take away because there were no individual rights until 2008. Until 2008, everyone agreed that the people had a right to a militia that could bear arms. 2008 changed that.

The 1939 ruling codified that what people thought about the 2A - that is related to having a military that could possess guns.


The right for individuals to have guns is only 12 years old. My proof, the 1939 SCOTUS ruling.

So individuals were NOT able to own and bear arms before 2008?

Unless they were supplied by the military? I think you might be wrong about that.


I don't care what people think about it. It says what it says. I know what a free state is, I know what security means.I know what well regulated means. I know what militia's are. I know who the people are. I know what rights are.

It's all very clearly stated with easily recognizable words. If they meant to say more than what they said, they woulda said it. They were fairly smart men and knew about words.

Are you able to find evidence of individual gun ownership rights prior to 2008 besides the 2A whose interpretation can go either way?

Trump made a run at privatizing schools. He failed but the woman in charge screwed it up as much as she could. All schools used to have nurses and councilors - not any more. Even if there is somebody that knows the kid needs help I suspect there is nobody there to do anything about it. Texas, incidentally, is the worst state in the nation for things mental health and their governor is making sure they will maintain that status.

All that being said I suspect that the Republicans will win all their elections down there - hope I am wrong...........

I read that elsewhere as well. No school nurses or guidance counselors, but they do have a cop with a gun! Aren't Republican policies grand?

I think it's fairly simple to prove that guns were legally sold to individuals for that entire time.

It's called paraphrasing, and in this case there is no difference in meaning between what I typed and what was written in the Constitution.

well ahhh ... I believe you have done exactly what you accused me of i.e. added words which are not intended. Militias were well understood in colonial times and at the time of the writing of the Constitution. It constituted a levied group of local citizens which ere called by state government for which each county would comply with their requisite number of soldiers. Usually it was a 3 month tour of duty, encompassing roll calls and marching in formation. County records detail the soldier lists, the elected officers, AWOLs etc. i.e. "well regulated".

Remember at the time of Washington's inauguration, the US had no standing army. It had a small professional officer corps which was used as the leaders of state militias when they were called on by the president. Also remember no state provided weapons to the levied citizens serving in the militia. It was assumed by the states each would provide their own weapon. Thus no government entity could infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, as should they do so, there would not be a cadre of armed soldiers.

So here's the problem with your argument about guns. Congress passed the Army Act of 1901 to reorganize the current status of the army and converted into the modern army we know today. The act effectively did away with "state militias" which relied on quarterly levies, and converted them into the voluntary reserve army. When it did so only a few states continued their militias, which then became voluntary, and mostly for ceremonial purposes. Now since the Act effectively did away with the need for "well regulated" militias, it essentially did away with the infringement phrase.

Because the US Army no longer relied on individuals providing their own weapons while in state militias, states could regulate as they deemed fit. Thus states could deem it necessary to allow citizens to own AR-15's or Thompson machine guns to kill prairie dogs, so long as the federal government did not see the same weapons as a danger to the general public to "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

So my question is, since immigrants still desire to come to America despite the perk of having their children shot at by armed assailants in schools, why do we continue to issue loaded uzi's to every new born baby?

oh and BTW ... that was my argument about the 2nd. The reality is, it is more complex and includes changing values and thoughts following the civil war and culminating in Heller, in which J Scalia effectively rewrote the amendment by double lined marked through the first phrase of the 2nd.

The SC can not elect presidents nor can they rewrite the Constitution.

Like you, I'm aware of the history. But the Constitution wasn't written to stand for a few years and be replaced every time something changed.

In regards to your question...

We do not.

machine guns