On Oct. 27, 1787, the first of the Federalist Papers, a series of essays calling for ratification of the United States Constitution, was published.


(What would Hamilton, Jay and Madison think of us now?)

The Federalists believed that the Constitution, as drafted, would effectively restrict the powers of the federal government. They did not believe a Bill of Rights was necessary.
However, the group that did not trust the document to prevent corruption of the government leading to eventually tyranny were the Anti-Federalists. If you think the BoR was necessary, it is the them you need to thank.

In your opinion, how accurate was their belief?

History has proven the antis prescient. Hamilton and the pros on the other hand would probably be ecstatic given the current state of affairs. Biographies of the FFs make for fascinating reading. Politics have always centered around money, power, and angry men (and women) with petty jealousies.

I wonder what message people take away when they realize that our constitution was a document written by our young government, knowing that we would need to be protected from our old government later on down the road...

...free speech
...right to bear arms
...freedom from having to quartering government troops


The first three seem to free up citizens enough for them to be able to shoot move and communicate
...is it a coincidence?


The next three are supposed to prevent the gubmint from digging in my business, forcing me to give testimony, and preventing them from arbitrarily punishing me without a trial
...after practicing the first three amendments, a citizen might need the protection of the second three
...is THAT a coincidence?

The next three tend to govern HOW those court proceedings move forward and the last one says when in doubt its up to the state
or the people


This isn't at ALL about protecting the second amendment.
The bill of rights isn't just one amendment - it is ten of them.
Liars and criminals, the likes of those on the left only need to break one link in the chain to enslave the common man.
...don't be blinded or distracted by the attack on the 2d amendment. They are ALL under assault.


Don't believe me?
Your free speech is censored by political correctness, assaulted by SJWs, and ignored by the political elites.

Right to bear arms not infringed? Why then do purchase certificates and CCW permits cost money?

You think you have privacy from illegal search and seizure?
...hahaha of course you do
...just make sure you let the NSA know first


5th amendment?
...my shiny white ass. You try that shit and you'll get hit with contempt of court. Those protections are only for the privileged.


The bill of rights protects "the well born conspirators" today just like those pesky old forefathers said it would. Just like some of those uneducated hillbillies without internet and Blackberry smart phones told us it would.
How did they know?
Funny how back in the late 1700's the idea that Washington DC would become “the asylum of the base, idle, avaricious and ambitious.” was no less conspiratorial than suggesting that hilLIEary clint0ns e-mails are about anything but yoga classes and grandchildren.



...but hey, that's just my opinion - I could be wrong.

Great posts.

The anti-tryranny aspects of the 2A and indeed the complete BORs anticipates the inevitable corruption of men (and women) of power and the subsequent oppression of ordinary citizens the likes of Stalin's atrocities, Chairman Mao's purges, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few examples of armed troops dominating unarmed populations.

Those hillbillies back when sure knew a thing or two.

Thank you.

I agree. Hamilton, Jay and Madison were idealists and coming from their experience with the crown and breaking with GB, they would probably assume it was insanity to enumerate all the things the government could NOT do to you. Of course every citizen had the right and needed to have the ability to defend themselves, declare their support or opposition to a topic, not be randomly imprisoned or have their property taken from them. What IDIOT didn't understand that (in 1789)?

Enter the weasel-worders that slither through society (the first one was in the Garden)..... Now the snakes are so busy cranking out laws and rules and regulations (and executive fiats) that it reads like that 600 foot long caution/danger disclaimer in a prescription drug box.

Good job NRA
 

As part of its efforts to stay relevant during the election, and raise money, the National Rifle Association has described a way to build an AR-15 rifle on a budget.

A nice easy read below that summarizes the basics nicely for newcomers - a review of the entire thread might be timely for the revived Second Amendment Caucus (a group of conservative U.S. Representatives has banded together to form a caucus that will work towards shepherding a host of pro-gun bills in the new Congress).

http://www.guns.com/2016/12/14/repub...ndment-caucus/

Second Amendment: A fundamental principle of American liberty
By Dr. Joyce Lee Malcolm - - Monday, December 12, 2016
Washington Times

The Founders would not have been surprised that the Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear arms” survives.

What would have surprised them was that it very nearly didn’t.

The right of self-defense it protects had been considered the primary law of nature since antiquity. Other governments may have forbidden their people to have weapons to protect themselves, but the English did not. Englishmen had a long-standing duty to be armed to keep the peace and, beginning with the English Bill of Rights of 1689, that duty became a right.

Like other rights Americans derived from England, the original English right to have arms had restrictions — in this case religious and class limits, although these fell away by the early 19th century. In his classic work popular with the Founders, “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” William Blackstone referred to the right of having arms as a “natural right of resistance and self preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

He insisted no government could take the right to self-defense away. In contrast to any limitations on the English right, the American Second Amendment assumed “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and decreed it “not be infringed.”

For most of its history, the Second Amendment was understood to confer an individual right, notwithstanding hundreds of various regulations. But in the 1960s, widespread riots and three political assassinations led to demands for stricter gun controls. Campaigns began for onerous restrictions on private ownership of firearms, including total bans.

Along with these, came a debate over the core meaning of the Second Amendment. The gist was that Americans had been wrong to believe the Second Amendment guaranteed them an individual right. The words of the amendment were parsed to disabuse them of that idea. Rather than the “well-regulated” militia as a reason for general ownership of weapons, it was argued that the amendment merely ensured that states have a militia and that membership in the militia, today’s National Guard, constituted the only right to be armed.

To advance this hypothesis, the amendment was interpreted as exclusively military. Unlike reference to “the people” in the First and Fourth Amendments protecting individual rights, we were told that in the Second Amendment “the right of the people” merely intended a “collective” right.

“Arms” meant only military weapons, “to bear” meant carrying weapons in a military force. “Keep” was ignored.

There was even the claim that if an individual right were intended, it only protected 18th century weapons.

Those opposed to the individual right interpretation even claimed the individual right was a brand new idea. Laurence Tribe, in the 1979 edition of his popular textbook, “American Constitutional Law,” relegated the Second Amendment to a footnote. A generation of law students were taught accordingly.

In 2008, the Supreme Court acted.

In the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court examined the meaning of the Second Amendment for the first time. The justices overturned Washington, D.C.’s ban on residents keeping handguns in their homes, affirming the individual’s right to keep and bear those weapons in common use for self-defense and other lawful purposes.

Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment’s individual right throughout the country, finding it “a fundamental principle of American liberty.”

Despite these decisions, debate continues. Both landmark opinions affirming the right of Americans to keep and bear arms were passed by 5-4 majorities, with the dissenting justices asking that they be overturned. Further, some judges are choosing to ignore the high court.

Moves to protect and expand the right to be armed are, however, rapidly advancing in the states. Forty-four state constitutions include a right to be armed, and only nine of the 50 states have restrictive rules to prevent residents from carrying a concealed weapon, while 11 states permit any resident who lawfully owns a firearm to carry it concealed without further requirements.

Millions of Americans own and use firearms peacefully. Despite the recent uptick in gun violence in a few cities, the past 20 years have seen a dramatic drop in gun crime and gun homicides.

The Second Amendment affords Americans a right and ability to protect themselves and their loved ones. It places ultimate trust in the good sense of the American people, as the Founders intended.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ple-of-americ/

• Joyce Lee Malcolm, Ph.D., is Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment at Antonin Scalia Law School. She has written extensively on the English and American right of the people to be armed.

NICS background checks for the year 2016 at link below.

That's a lot of heaters.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/...month_year.pdf

And those are just the ones that need/require a background check. I've not needed an FBI background check since I got my AZ CWP. ;)

That's what really gives statists pause (or nightmares); as well as thoughts, perhaps, about the patriarch with dozens distributing some out to a grown kith & kin as simply exchange of private property among 2 free persons. If it gives them heebee-jeebees then I'm all :D

Same here in Texas.

Obama's tenure 2009-2016: 157,233,157

Not included are how many background checks were approved for purchase, which would be a good number to publish. Although that still wouldn't give a 1 to 1 correlation of actual purchases considering multiple firearms purchased at one time and purchases made in states like Texas and Arizona that do not require an NICS check for license holders.

One industry is gonna miss BHO...the gun salesman of the year...this is a good opportunity to buy. Complete article and graphs/charts at link below,

Crashing "Post-Obama Era" Gun Sales Lead To Remington Mass Layoffs

Tyler Durden's picture
by Tyler Durden
ZERO HEDGE
Mar 14, 2017 12:46 PM

As we noted last summer, the Obama administration’s constant gun control threats did little more than flood American homes with more guns as people looked to stockpile weapons ahead of anticipated new regulations. In fact, both of Obama's elections resulted in massive and unprecedented spikes in gun sales.

Meanwhile, Obama's presidency was a boon for the gun manufacturers whose revenue, profitability and stocks all soared during his presidency.

But while the constant threat of new regulations under Obama resulted in a massive full forward of gun demand and pushed gun stocks to all-time highs, the election of Trump, and thus the removal of those threats for at least the next 4-8 years, is having exactly the opposite effect.

If fact, Remington Outdoor just announced layoffs of 120 people at their upstate New York manufacturing facility due to sinking gun demand in the Trump era. Per the Wall Street Journal:

Meanwhile, other firearms makers, including American Outdoor Brands, formerly known as Smith & Wesson, say demand for weapons, particularly handguns, has been ebbing since Trump's election. Earlier this month the company posted disappointing sales and higher inventories and admitted to investors on their quarterly earnings call that business had slowed...all of which sent the stock into a downward spiral.

Meanwhile, Wedbush equity analyst James Hardiman expects FBI background checks, a good indicator of gun sales, to be down 10-15% in 2017.

<snip>

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...cturing-facili

I'd like to see "accessory sales" spike because a suppressor is an OTC item in a bubble-pak.