# Politics and News > SOCIETY & humanities >  A Final Militia Friendly Solution to the National Debate on Gun Control

## Victory

I was just thinking today about the 2nd Amendment and specifically the utter contortionist twisting that gun controllers and gun banners do when they conclude that the National Guard has assumed the role of "militia" in the 2nd Amendment.  What if we staunch defenders of the faith. . .cave in?  Sorta.

What if we lovers of the 2nd Amendment realize and embrace the truth that we have not lived up to the principles of the "militia" in the 2nd Amendment?  What if we recognize the fact that if the founders could see into the future to 2014 they would laugh at the state of what we call the "militia" and then cry at the bastardization of the term?  What if we were to do something about it that would address the gun banners' inappropriate use of the word "militia" while correcting the pathetic state of the real militia?

What would that correction look like?

Well, let's take a page from Switzerland.  Progressives love Europe.  So let's give 'em Switzerland!  For a long time Switzerland has issued rifles to their conscripted army.  Once the soldiers leave the Army they keep their rifle and are expected to keep it in good working order.  Oh and by the way, Switzerland has about the lowest incident of crime in the world.  So there is that.  I'm not talking about conscripting Americans.  I'm talking about issuing firearms to adults too old for the military and young adults when they return their selective service cards at 18 years old.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp

The Snopes claim reads:  Switzerland issues firearms to adult men and provides training in their use. 

Total green light true.

So why not borrow from the wisdom of the Swiss?  Wouldn't that be EXACTLY in line with the intention of the 2nd Amendment?  Let's take a look at the details with Colorado as an example.

Colorado has about 5.3 million people.  A Colt 1911 costs maybe just under a thousand dollars (take it easy folks.  The monetary bottom line is going to be a moving target here.  There will be discounts for mass purchases and increases for training.  Go with the flow.)  That comes out to about $4.7 billion to arm every Coloradan.  There's lots of slop in that figure because we're not going to arm kids with government money and current gun owners may decline half of this program.  The idea is to ensure every Coloradan is armed and trained.  And since this is in support of building a "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. . ." it would behoove the federal government to pitch in (maybe with the money they save by repealing Obama care!).  Sounds completely Constitutional so far.

And some people won't want a Colt.  Some people won't want a .45.  And concealability should be a factor.  So give the people a choice.

Defender
Colt-defender.png

Glock subcompact (variety of calibers)



Ruger subcompact

201511_01_ruger_lcp_380_subcompact_auto_640.jpg

Or whatever.  The exact list is immaterial so long as the cost is reasonable and quality is reliable.  And maybe a husband and wife team pick up one shotgun for home defense and one concealable gun for when they leave the house.  Freedom of choice is a good thing.

And so the idea is THESE guns issued to citizens would be special in the sense that the Swiss issued guns would be special.  The serial number would be recorded next to the name it was issued to and recurring inspections would ensure "a well regulated militia."

Current background checks would still apply.  You don't get a gun if you are a felon or insane but you do need to choose a model and pick one up at a designated FFL dealer over the next year with your voucher that you just got with your tax return.  So current gun owners can deny issuance because they already have a gun.  But having said that, every person with a gun in Colorado must be trained upon issuance with safety and effectiveness being paramount.  And everyone needs to shoot a box of rounds at paper targets once a year.  And so this bill has two parts.

1) Ensure every able person in Colorado has a gun.  If a citizen doesn't have one, one will be issued to him/her.
2) Once a year (or every 2 years?  Whatever.  Details.) every citizen must show up to a range, show their gun is in proper working order, and fire a box of rounds at a paper target.

Let's assume we can rely upon volunteers for initial and recurring training (or not.  Maybe they cost a little.).  Future gun purchases and advanced training is the private citizen's responsibility.

THIS is the real intent the founders had when they were talking about "a well regulated militia."  They meant, "make sure everyday people have access to guns so they can police *themselves*."  THAT is the real militia!

A person can put away their gun until the next recurring training or wear it whenever they leave the house.

But isn't this insanely expensive?

Well, so far we've only discussed the cost.  But what about the savings?  Opponents will complain about skyrocketing medical costs due to gunshot wounds but we've seen first hand how statistics and government numbers lie so that can be easily dismissed.  How much will we save in court costs, reduced police departments, jail maintenance, vandalism, crime in general, . . .

Now you see the wisdom in the bill.  For an initial investment of $4.7 billion and much smaller recurring costs, Colorado could drop its crime rate to that of Switzerland.  Do you think other states would copy that?  I think even New York and California would want to emulate such a "progressive" European model like Switzerland.

Thoughts?

----------


## Old Navy

That still looks like gun control to me....

----------


## Victory

> That still looks like gun control to me....


How so?  Privately bought and owned guns would still be hands off.  No registration, no tracking, no license needed etc.  Yes they are "registered guns" [throws a bone to Progressives in the spirit of "compromise"] but if the government comes for "registered" guns they'd only be taking the guns they gave to citizens in the first place.  By then, the number of private sale gun owners will have skyrocketed--still can't touch those guns.

It's possible that a "government cheese" gun would remove the fear that lots of regular non-gun owners have and would hence inspire them to buy their own private, unregistered etc. guns.  Look at the video!  These women all said they were scared of guns at first.  But now that they've had just a bit of training they see their fear is pretty unfounded.  Tens of millions of Americans are the same.  We need to crack this nut of Americans being afraid of guns.

----------


## Old Navy

We currently have *A gun Control law*....it's called the *2nd Amendment*.....no need to "*compromise"* as you suggested. 

  Now under your plan the Governments going to give folks guns,* the Government will keep a record,* everyone that receives a gun will have to be trained, *the Government will keep a record**,* everyone will have to shoot a box of ammo at paper targets once a year, *the Government will keep a record,* and those that turn down the issuance of a fire-arm, *the Government will keep a record.*   That's called GUN CONTROL....


As to your interpretation of the *Founding Fathers* intent....well you need to go read some of the Founding fathers letters and papers concern the *"Peoples Right to bear arms.*"

There's *no hidden meaning* to the 2nd Amendment, it says exactly what they intended for it to say.

----------

birddog (11-16-2014),Jim Scott (11-13-2014),Rutabaga (11-15-2014)

----------


## Victory

> We currently have *A gun Control law*....it's called the *2nd Amendment*.....no need to "*compromise"* as you suggested. 
> 
>   Now under your plan the Governments going to give folks guns,* the Government will keep a record,* everyone that receives a gun will have to be trained, *the Government will keep a record**,* everyone will have to shoot a box of ammo at paper targets once a year, *the Government will keep a record,* and those that turn down the issuance of a fire-arm, *the Government will keep a record.*   That's called GUN CONTROL....
> 
> 
> As to your interpretation of the *Founding Fathers* intent....well you need to go read some of the Founding fathers letters and papers concern the *"Peoples Right to bear arms.*"
> 
> There's *no hidden meaning* to the 2nd Amendment, it says exactly what they intended for it to say.


I understand.  But what are they keeping a record of?  It's really nothing more than government issued items.  I doubt anybody would say we should NOT keep a record of that.

And what's the worst thing that could happen?  They confiscate ALL guns they handed out?  Well, first of all, they handed them out so. . .and second of all, that's a shit load of guns they'd be confiscating.  Remember, they handed out over 5 million in Colorado alone!  That's a damn big operation to clean that up! So let the government confiscate those guns.  The seed planted by handing them out would turn millions of scared people into more confident gun owners.  That is the aim.  Let the government gun owners protest gov gun confiscation.  The situation just ratchets the debate in OUR favor.  More gun owners in America is ALWAYS a good thing.

And what do you think of the state of the militia in the nation?  Not the National Guard but the real no kidding militia--John Q Publics like you and me? Don't we have some kind of civic duty to protect ourselves and loved ones?  Who better to do that than us? Shouldn't the state and federal government get behind that kind of principle?  What is the state of the gun culture in America?  I'd say it's pretty shitty because too many people watch Hollywood crap for entertainment instead of family time at the range.  How do we turn that bad gun culture into a good gun culture?  We need something big, not just "stay the course."

But here's the real litmus test:  What do you think the gun banners would say about this bill?

----------


## Old Navy

> I understand.  But what are they keeping a record of?  It's really nothing more than government issued items. * I doubt anybody would say we should NOT keep a record of that.*
> 
> *And what's the worst thing that could happen?*  They confiscate ALL guns they handed out?  Well, first of all, they handed them out so. . .and second of all, that's a shit load of guns they'd be confiscating.  Remember, they handed out over 5 million in Colorado alone!  That's a damn big operation to clean that up! So let the government confiscate those guns. * The seed planted by handing them out would turn millions of scared people into more confident gun owners.*  That is the aim.  Let the government gun owners protest gov gun confiscation.  The situation just ratchets the debate in OUR favor.  More gun owners in America is ALWAYS a good thing.
> 
> And what do you think of the *state of the militia in the nation?*  Not the National Guard but the real no kidding militia--John Q Publics like you and me? Don't we have some kind of civic duty to protect ourselves and loved ones?  Who better to do that than us? Shouldn't the state and federal government get behind that kind of principle?  What is the state of the gun culture in America?  I'd say it's pretty shitty because too many people watch Hollywood crap for entertainment instead of family time at the range.  How do we turn that *bad gun culture* into a *good gun culture?*  We need something big, not just "stay the course."
> 
> But here's the real litmus test:  What do you think the gun banners would say about this bill?





> * I doubt anybody would say we should NOT keep a record of that.*


I would.




> What do you think the gun banners would say about this bill?


The so called "Gun Banners would still be against it.....as I am.




> How do we turn that *bad gun culture* into a *good gun culture?*


I'm sure where you live, .....but Wow.  I just don't see a bad gun culture.  Sure there a few nuts with guns, as there are criminals with guns.  That will never be stopped.




> And what do you think of the *state of the militia in the nation?*


As to the state of the Militia, I think if you and I knew where they are all located, you'd be surprised at how well organized they are....and how secretive many of them are....there's been very little need for organized civilian Militia to date, and thus very few problems with them....that's Hollywood and President PeeWee that tries to makes the so called "Gun Culture" look bad.  It appears you've bought into that.




> *And what's the worst thing that could happen?*  They confiscate ALL guns


You answered that one yourself.

The best solution is to leave the 2nd Amendment alone...

----------


## nonsqtr

Well, the big problem I see in this scheme is not so much the gun giveaway, it's more in the training.

How are you going to guarantee that everyone who gets a gun completes the training?

Because the last thing in the world you want to do is give guns to ignorant uneducated know-nothings... um.... right?  :Dontknow: 

I like the idea, the point I see in it is mainly the mass education in the proper use and safety of firearms. If we can make that "robust" IMO it would be a big point in its favor, and in terms of debate it one could take that issue off the table up front the remainder of it would probably boil down to a question of the money. (Not including the ever-present bleeding heart liberals, you know)...  :Smile:

----------

Ghost of Lunchboxxy (11-15-2014)

----------


## Victory

> How do we turn that *bad gun culture* into a *good gun culture?*





> I'm sure where you live, .....but Wow.  I just don't see a bad gun culture.


Understand what I mean when I say "bad gun culture."  It is the idea that guns are to be feared by regular citizens.  This genuine fear mongering is promoted by Hollywood in movies like Pulp Fiction, Resevoir Dogs, Wanted, Django Unchained and even the "good" ones with Bruce Willis.  




This is the bad gun culture.

Cool as guns may be in these movies they are portrayed as toys.  That notion promotes a tone of irresponsibility with guns that Hollywood idiots rail against because they can't separate their own screen fiction from reality.  The problem is, people listen to them.  Where is the truth promoted by people like you and me in this culture?  In movies it is totally absent.




> As to the state of the Militia, I think if you and I knew where they are all located, you'd be surprised at how well organized they are


Not that militia.  I'm talking about regular people unaffiliated with any group and completely unorganized except for one day out of the year when they show their gun is in good working order and they can hit paper with it.  That is the real militia.




> The best solution is to leave the 2nd Amendment alone...


I'm not talking about changing the 2nd Amendment.  In fact, I'm REALLY talking about fully embracing it. 

 Side note:  There are pre-Revolution laws that REQUIRED people in Virginia to carry guns and powder when travelling.  Some colonies even provided guns to citizens if they couldn't provide them for themselves in pretty much EXACTLY the manner I talk about here!  I think they had the right idea.

----------


## Victory

> Well, the big problem I see in this scheme is not so much the gun giveaway, it's more in the training.
> 
> How are you going to guarantee that everyone who gets a gun completes the training?


A number of ways:  Issue the gun of choice AT the training range.  Check a box on your tax return and fill in the box with your confirmation code (like when you buy something on line) that you received gun and training.  Government can cross reference for verification.  Or you could pick up the gun at your dealer and show up for training on a later date.  You don't get your registration confirmation code until training is complete.  You could mail in the code, attach it to your tax return, or figure out some other way to close the loop.




> Because the last thing in the world you want to do is give guns to ignorant uneducated know-nothings... um.... right?


Absolutely!  What we have now are uneducated know-nothings who watch too many movies and can't separate them from reality so they fear guns, don't buy or train with them, and then support gun banner legislation because of all the stupid juice Hollywood is serving them.  The whole program would be all about education.

Knowledge is power.  Knowledge about guns is power over criminals.

----------

nonsqtr (11-13-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> I was just thinking today about the 2nd Amendment and specifically the utter contortionist twisting that gun controllers and gun banners do when they conclude that the National Guard has assumed the role of "militia" in the 2nd Amendment. What if we staunch defenders of the faith. . .cave in? Sorta.
> 
> What if we lovers of the 2nd Amendment realize and embrace the truth that we have not lived up to the principles of the "militia" in the 2nd Amendment?


Because lying is never good policy.

Lying to ourselves is merely insanity.

That's why we shouldn't tell lies like you suggest.

----------


## Victory

> Because lying is never good policy.
> 
> Lying to ourselves is merely insanity.
> 
> That's why we shouldn't tell lies like you suggest.


What "lie" are you talking about?

Do you think we've lived up to the principles of the 2nd Amendment?  Do you think we have the "militia" today that was embraced by the Founders?

I don't.  There's no lie there what-so-ever.

The whole point about "caving in. . .sorta"  (note the "sorta") was to square our shoulders to the issue and beat the Progressive gun grabbers on their own ground in their own terms.  It's saying, "Y'know, Progs, the militia _IS_ important.  Let's address that aspect as you love to do so often.  The first thing to address is your effed up notion that the National Guard is the militia.  It's not.  You've been fed a lie about the role of the militia.  The second thing to address is building a better militia now that we're square on what it really is."

So you see, I'm not lying.  I'm scattering and destroying lies.

----------


## old wood

> I was just thinking today about the 2nd Amendment and specifically the utter contortionist twisting that gun controllers and gun banners do when they conclude that the National Guard has assumed the role of "militia" in the 2nd Amendment.  What if we staunch defenders of the faith. . .cave in?  Sorta.
> 
> What if we lovers of the 2nd Amendment realize and embrace the truth that we have not lived up to the principles of the "militia" in the 2nd Amendment?  What if we recognize the fact that if the founders could see into the future to 2014 they would laugh at the state of what we call the "militia" and then cry at the bastardization of the term?  What if we were to do something about it that would address the gun banners' inappropriate use of the word "militia" while correcting the pathetic state of the real militia?
> 
> What would that correction look like?
> 
> Well, let's take a page from Switzerland.  Progressives love Europe.  So let's give 'em Switzerland!  For a long time Switzerland has issued rifles to their conscripted army.  Once the soldiers leave the Army they keep their rifle and are expected to keep it in good working order.  Oh and by the way, Switzerland has about the lowest incident of crime in the world.  So there is that.  I'm not talking about conscripting Americans.  I'm talking about issuing firearms to adults too old for the military and young adults when they return their selective service cards at 18 years old.
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp
> ...


Okay bubba.....it ain't the 18th century...and Swiss reservists don't pack concealed pistols, they have a military rifle AT HOME and are seen as RESERVISTS.    That's actually no longer ever the  POLICY. That's optional now.   We ain't Swiss....and we have NO state where there's an OFFICIAL "Well regulated Militia".  With the MANY layers of law enforcement and a huge military + National Guard... there's not much point to it. 

the 2nd....is a CONSTRUCT ...totally.. of the Supreme Court.  The Militia thing.. is  no longer relevent.  The WORDING of the original document... not relevant.   The COURTS... have in REAL LIFE.... set lines,limits of what is or is not OKAY.   There's a little grey area.  Mostly.....WHATEVER law stands or did stand ...Federal, State, Local... is likely CONSTITUTIONAL.  The Courts do NOT allow a broad BAN of "all guns".. no " Gun Grab" but RESTRICTIONS... have been okay for 100+ years.

Duide.. you can be in Pro-Gun Texas.. the Cops pull you over..driving on Meth in a Stolen Car... they find guns... you WILL be charged on the Guns AND you will not get to KEEP them.  If you get cuffed, arrested, taken to jail.. you do NOT get to pack your pistol in the cop car, in the holding cell, in Court.  Is that a SURPRISE?.


Going back to Al Capone, Bonnie + Clyde... some guns were almosst always illegal.   The USE of a sawed off shotgun, a Silencer...is mostly about stuff apt to be illegal.  If you are as nuts as a few folks here... you WANT a pile of guns and ...should not have ANY lethal weapon.  If you are a CRIMINAL..... your " right" to pack heat.. to resume a career of Armed violence.. is LOST. 


IDIOTS who  are too fucking dumb, lazy, to dig up a few FACTS.... dance on the puppet strings, throw tantrums...prove they ARE too fucked up, hostile, immature to trust with a sharp stick.   Some are IMMUNE to Logic.  Some ARE in reality... so Paranoid Sociopath they SHOULD not have a gun...but.. since the USA has almost no  real Mental Health system...we have MILLIONS of Americans who have Guns and are time bombs.   Online......ANY time there's ANY talk of GUNS... it ain't the Deer Hunters, Duck Hunters...it's the crazy ass paranoids, it's the Wannabe Fascists who want  to overthrow America, the Constitution, grab power.  America has as many gunsd as citizens. America has more gun homicides each year than EVERYONE ELSE... combined... yet the PARANOID SOCIOPATHS... want  unlimited rights to  go full FETISH...to kill on impulse... to plot TREASON.

----------


## old wood

> What "lie" are you talking about?
> 
> Do you think we've lived up to the principles of the 2nd Amendment?  Do you think we have the "militia" today that was embraced by the Founders?
> 
> I don't.  There's no lie there what-so-ever.
> 
> The whole point about "caving in. . .sorta"  (note the "sorta") was to square our shoulders to the issue and beat the Progressive gun grabbers on their own ground in their own terms.  It's saying, "Y'know, Progs, the militia _IS_ important.  Let's address that aspect as you love to do so often.  The first thing to address is your effed up notion that the National Guard is the militia.  It's not.  You've been fed a lie about the role of the militia.  The second thing to address is building a better militia now that we're square on what it really is."
> 
> So you see, I'm not lying.  I'm scattering and destroying lies.


LOL.........You are argueing with Sled Dog...who I consider VERY right wing.   NOBODY.....has pushed for "gun Grab"  that goes beyond the Brady Bill of WAY back.   Nobody... want's to arm the Next Adam Lanza.    The Asshats who want guns to be EASY.... are for WHITE nutjobs to have them.. NOT Blacks, Hispanics.  I'm a white Liberal with attitude..I also am a real good shot. Do you want me to have a sniper rifle?   i don't think so.

If you know SHIT about US History... in the Revolution Militias WERE a lot like National Guard... but...were TEMPORARY local reserves.  Even the National Guard is not quite the same.. is closest.  As written... the 2nd in large part was about STATES having some power vs the Feds.  Outside cities.. rural folk had guns to hunt, to shoot varmits...Indians, outlaws.   The Founders assumed THAT.. was a HGIVEN. Bearing Arms.. in Context.. was a GROUP thing.  One dude with a single shot flintlock... was not gonna  have a big political/social impact.    Battles, POWER....happen when you got a few DOZEN guys who can fire a volley.   Decades later... things changed.  Along cam the modern cartridge ,classic REPEATERS like the iconic Colt peracemaker, the Lever action Winchester, Henry.

A guy alone in the forest with an early Muzzle loader, 18th century.. was in trouble vs 32-3 indians with arrows. He has 2 shots a minute.. they EACH have 5-10.  I had ancestors who made Pennsylvania long Rifles in Lancaster County. The Continental Army.. bought + used many.   The 2nd....never was about 
that.  What was RELEVANT in the 1700's... has CHANGED. My ancestor, JF made classic rifles.. but was later killed and scalped by Indians in Pennsylvania.  If he had a Tommy Gun... odds are he dies of old age.  If there were Tommy Guns when they wrote the Constitution.. the whole point of View is WAY different.


So.... BOZOS... the SCOTUS.... sets limits BOTH WAYS and mostly states, locals work witn those lines. Idiots who  REFUSE to BOTHER... to know SHIT...... try to make up LAW.  It don't WORK.

----------


## RMNIXON

> If you know SHIT about US History... in the Revolution Militias WERE a lot like National Guard... but...were TEMPORARY local reserves.  Even the National Guard is not quite the same.. is closest.  As written... the 2nd in large part was about STATES having some power vs the Feds.  Outside cities.. rural folk had guns to hunt, to shoot varmits...Indians, outlaws.   The Founders assumed THAT.. was a HGIVEN. Bearing Arms.. in Context.. was a GROUP thing.




You obviously don't know your history. 

In some parts of these United States as founded it was actually the law that male teens of a certain age own a firearm. And if they could not afford it outright it was provided to them! And there was no complaint and quite the opposite because you liberals had yet to transform Americans male youth into sissies afraid of the simple training on safe and moral use of a firearm. 

It was not organized like a National Guard but never denied a right to be organized. People like you were not conceivable!

----------

Victory (11-15-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> What "lie" are you talking about?
> 
> Do you think we've lived up to the principles of the 2nd Amendment?


Yup.

If by "we" you mean the Americans and not the Rodents and politicians.






> Do you think we have the "militia" today that was embraced by the Founders?


Yup.

The word "militia" at that time meant that set of able-bodied men not in the military.  As far as I can tell, the US still has able-bodied men not in the military, and by definition still has a "militia".




> I don't.  There's no lie there what-so-ever.


Failure to understand is not an acceptable excuse on an internet forum unless it's also accompanied with apology and reversal of position.




> The whole point about "caving in. . .sorta"  (note the "sorta") was to square our shoulders to the issue and beat the Progressive gun grabbers on their own ground in their own terms.  It's saying, "Y'know, Progs, the militia _IS_ important.  Let's address that aspect as you love to do so often.  The first thing to address is your effed up notion that the National Guard is the militia.  It's not.  You've been fed a lie about the role of the militia.  The second thing to address is building a better militia now that we're square on what it really is."
> 
> So you see, I'm not lying.  I'm scattering and destroying lies.


So you want to beat the fascists by providing the fascists with a required registration scheme listing everyone who has a gun.

Wonderful.

I'll pass on the stupidity.

----------

Rutabaga (11-19-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> IDIOTS who  are too fucking dumb, lazy, to dig up a few FACTS.... dance on the puppet strings, throw tantrums...prove they ARE too fucked up, hostile, immature to trust with a sharp stick.   Some are IMMUNE to Logic.  Some ARE in reality... so Paranoid Sociopath they SHOULD not have a gun...but.. since the USA has almost no  real Mental Health system...we have MILLIONS of Americans who have Guns and are time bombs.   Online......ANY time there's ANY talk of GUNS... it ain't the Deer Hunters, Duck Hunters...it's the crazy ass paranoids, it's the Wannabe Fascists who want  to overthrow America, the Constitution, grab power.  America has as many gunsd as citizens. America has more gun homicides each year than EVERYONE ELSE... combined... yet the PARANOID SOCIOPATHS... want  unlimited rights to  go full FETISH...to kill on impulse... to plot TREASON.



You're absolutely right.  NO ONE registered as a DemocRAT should be allowed to vote, since the Rodents are too damn stupid, firggin' "IDIOTS" as it were,  to bother to figure out the facts, one of which is that the Constitution means what it means until a ratified amendment alters that meaning.

The courts do not define what the Constitution means, it defines if a law is consistent with the Constitution.   Naturally we all expect Obama voters to get that kind of thing ass-backwards.

----------

Rutabaga (11-19-2014)

----------


## Victory

> Yup.
> 
> 
> So you want to beat the fascists by providing the fascists with a required registration scheme *listing everyone who has a gun*.



_NOOOOOOOOO!_

Not "everyone who has a gun!"  If the bill is passed then "everyone who has a gun" will be equivalent to the Colorado census.  I'm not talking about registering guns bought privately!  I'm not talking about registering future private gun sales!  I don't know how more plain I can make it!

I'm talking about implementing what RMNIXON said in post 14 and what I said in post 8.  This is nothing new.  It's an idea over 230 years old.  In fact, it's already been done by people far more patriotic and far more in touch with the right to bear arms than any of us could hope to be (I'm talking about the colonials and early patriots not the Swiss).  If you can't afford a gun one will be provided.  What the hell is so wrong with that?  Isn't that putting rocket fuel in the 2nd Amendment?  Isn't that exactly what we need?

----------


## Sled Dog

> _NOOOOOOOOO!_
> 
> Not "everyone who has a gun!" If the bill is passed then "everyone who has a gun" will be equivalent to the Colorado census. I'm not talking about registering guns bought privately! I'm not talking about registering future private gun sales! I don't know how more plain I can make it!
> 
> I'm talking about implementing what RMNIXON said in post 14 and what I said in post 8. This is nothing new. It's an idea over 230 years old. In fact, it's already been done by people far more patriotic and far more in touch with the right to bear arms than any of us could hope to be (I'm talking about the colonials and early patriots not the Swiss). If you can't afford a gun one will be provided. What the hell is so wrong with that? Isn't that putting rocket fuel in the 2nd Amendment? Isn't that exactly what we need?


YESSSSSSSSSS!

First off, you're discussing in the OP, for whatever weird reason, HANDGUNS. The Second Amendment makes it perfectly clear that long guns are even more important than pistols. 

And it makes no difference what you think the bill would say, the final version would require that an inventory of weapons be made to save on the cost of providing weapons to citizens who already have them. Try to picture what your basic Rodent Retard believes, the fools that support "gun control" because they're essentially naked sheep. No such bill as what you want is going to pass with out a "compromise".

The possession of a hand gun in "everyone's" hands would provide MASSIVE incentive for the Rodent Retards to demand registration, limitation, and naturally, eventual confiscation of all long rifles....which is what the citizens must have to turn tyrants into dog food.

Not one bit of the current or historical gun control hysteria has been truly aimed at the small weapons. The goal is to eliminate the power the people can claim under Federalist 29, citizen orchestrated weasel hunts.

NO COMPROMISE ON LIBERTY.

NONE.

It's what the Rodents want to see. Their side will lie, as usual, and then we have to fight to overthrow that bullshit first.

----------


## usfan

Interesting concept, @Victory.  I'd probably not be in favor of something like this, because of too much govt involvement.. they tend to ruin any good ideas with implementation.  I'd prefer they stayed out of the way, minimally involved in our lives, & living on subsistence from minimal taxes.  Of course, it is their duty to protect the nation, but they usually use that as an excuse to fleece us & micromanage everything we do, under the pretext of security.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

Why arm every American with handguns?  They aren't very good in a fire fight.  A rifle or carbine is much better.  
Issuing something like the SKS or Mini-14 would be better for a "militia" and self-defense.  Since the SKS and it's ammo is foreign made, the Mini-14 in 5.56mm would be the best option.  As mass buy from Ruger and subcontractors, the cost could likely be brought down to under $500.  The same idea could be applied to AR-15 style weapons.   Of course, the anti-gun Left would shit a brick at the idea.

----------

usfan (11-16-2014),Victory (11-16-2014)

----------


## Hansel

> Why arm every American with handguns?  They aren't very good in a fire fight.  A rifle or carbine is much better.  
> Issuing something like the SKS or Mini-14 would be better for a "militia" and self-defense.  Since the SKS and it's ammo is foreign made, the Mini-14 in 5.56mm would be the best option.  As mass buy from Ruger and subcontractors, the cost could likely be brought down to under $500.  The same idea could be applied to AR-15 style weapons.   Of course, the anti-gun Left would shit a brick at the idea.


Max the idea of a handgun is that it can be easily concealed, as in concealed carry, where a long gun may present a problem due to its length.
As to a fire fight, you are correct though.  A pro in the business thought a pump action shotgun and  a revolver would be good choices for home defense. The revolver is supposed to be more reliable than other types of semi auto handguns.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Max the idea of a handgun is that it can be easily concealed, as in concealed carry, where a long gun may present a problem due to its length.
> As to a fire fight, you are correct though.  A pro in the business thought a pump action shotgun and  a revolver would be good choices for home defense. The revolver is supposed to be more reliable than other types of semi auto handguns.


If you want concealed carry, go for it, but as a taxpayer, if I'm going to help arm my fellow citizens for defense against tyranny and criminals, the long gun, literally, offers more bang for the buck.

----------

Victory (11-16-2014)

----------


## usfan

Most soldiers in battle have both.  A rifle for longer range duty, & a handgun for if it gets closer.  ..Even bayonets & knives for very close combat.  A carbine for general purpose national defense makes a lot more sense, if you are just issuing a single weapon.  I'd go with an ar or ak or mini 14 like rocky said.  It can do good duty for multiple situations.  I would much rather have a rifle in a shtf situation than just a pistol.  But this does not create a well balanced military force.  You also need long range shooters, mobile infantry, airborne, etc.  But for some general 'militia' purpose, a round like the 5.56 in a 16" bbl carbine makes a lot of sense.  I'd certainly pick that over a 9mm auto pistol.

----------


## Hansel

> If you want concealed carry, go for it, but as a taxpayer, if I'm going to help arm my fellow citizens for defense against tyranny and criminals, the long gun, literally, offers more bang for the buck.


I understand.  I had an M1 Garand, and Wikipedia said the rounds would carry for 2.75 miles.  Those old babies could take out three geeks at a time if you lined them up front to back.    The big downside of them is that they held only 8 rounds  and a few reportedly 
malfunctioned in the rain.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I understand.  I had an M1 Garand, and Wikipedia said the rounds would carry for 2.75 miles.  Those old babies could take out three geeks at a time if you lined them up front to back.    The big downside of them is that they held only 8 rounds  and a few reportedly 
> malfunctioned in the rain.


Which is why the M-14 was superior.  You could drag that sucker through the mud and it'd still fire a full magazine.

----------

birddog (11-16-2014)

----------


## usfan

> I understand.  I had an M1 Garand, and Wikipedia said the rounds would carry for 2.75 miles.  Those old babies could take out three geeks at a time if you lined them up front to back.    The big downside of them is that they held only 8 rounds  and a few reportedly 
> malfunctioned in the rain.


Hansel!!  You don't shoot geeks!  You shoot gooks!   :Laughing7:

----------


## Victory

> Max the idea of a handgun is that it can be easily concealed, as in concealed carry, where a long gun may present a problem due to its length.
> As to a fire fight, you are correct though.  A pro in the business thought a pump action shotgun and  a revolver would be good choices for home defense. The revolver is supposed to be more reliable than other types of semi auto handguns.


Actually, Max is a lot closer to what I was getting at.

Why NOT include AR-15s in the list of acceptable government issue weapons?  Why not indeed?  I mentioned in the OP about a husband and wife team accepting a concealed carry hand gun and a shotgun.  But the same team could just as easily accept a shot gun and an AR-15 as their government issue guns.

Why not?

----------


## Victory

> Why arm every American with handguns?  They aren't very good in a fire fight.  A rifle or carbine is much better.  
> Issuing something like the SKS or Mini-14 would be better for a "militia" and self-defense.  Since the SKS and it's ammo is foreign made, the Mini-14 in 5.56mm would be the best option.  As mass buy from Ruger and subcontractors, the cost could likely be brought down to under $500.  The same idea could be applied to AR-15 style weapons.   Of course, the anti-gun Left would shit a brick at the idea.


Great point!

The husband and wife team mentioned in the OP could very well have chosen a shotgun and an AR-15 for their government issue guns.

Why not?

----------


## Victory

> If you want concealed carry, go for it, but as a taxpayer, if I'm going to help arm my fellow citizens for defense against tyranny and criminals, the long gun, literally, offers more bang for the buck.


Hand gun, long gun, fighting crime, fighting tyranny. . .it's all good.

Criminals shit their pants second guessing whether or not a given mark is armed in highly armed areas.  And when government lives in fear of it's citizens, freedom reigns.

Remember, the point of the bill is education.  Once the seed is planted. . .

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Great point!
> 
> The husband and wife team mentioned in the OP could very well have chosen a shotgun and an AR-15 for their government issue guns.
> 
> Why not?


Allowing options costs more.  Lack of commonality costs more.  Better to a single issue weapon just like the military does since it saves costs in both the initial buy plus also repairs and parts.

----------


## Victory

> Allowing options costs more.  Lack of commonality costs more.  Better to a single issue weapon just like the military does since it saves costs in both the initial buy plus also repairs and parts.


Details.

Buying in mass quantities will have discounts.  Kimbers are expensive.  Glocks are not so much.  So maybe Glocks are on the list but Kimbers are not.  Volunteers cost nothing.  Differences in mechanisms can be dealt with at issuance and recurring training.  And if it costs a little more then maybe it's worth it.

Seriously, I think this idea is FAR more worthy than, say, the state equivalent of turtle tunnels, Obama care, or any number of programs.

The difference between this idea and your suggestions is a valid realm for compromise.

----------


## Hansel

I am not concerned about the need for the people to rise up and put down a tyrannical government.  Furthermore it would be nearly an impossible task 
to go at it solely with small arms fire.   Not that I want it, but there are Euro countries that are much more socialistic than we are and yet the quality of life is not all that bad for most people there.  We had visitors from northern England last summer, and the lady grew up in America.  I don't remember either of them complaining about their life in England.  In fact it seemed to be pretty laid back and care free compared to that of American families.

----------


## Old Navy

Let's see....we put this program in place.....the government buys a whole bunch of $400 guns, pays a $1,000 a piece for them....drives the price up for those that opt out of the program.  They hand out these Guns along with the free phone and food stamps.

Then the the Government needs 1000 bureaucrats to manage the list of folks that got guns and need training, so they hirer 20,000.  Then they have to hirer another 20,000 bureaucrats to keep track of those that opt'd out , because surely they have guns and need to be watched.    And coincidently are *Taxpayers* and most are NRA members.

Then they'll need about 5,000 lawyers to take care of the law suits when the they shoot themselves, or their neighbors.  So now we have a budget that rivals the defense department. 

  So now we have 45,000 more bureaucrats sucking on the Government Teat.   Paid with money the Government doesn't have. Then comes along another President PeeWee, who decides the "Department of Guns" (DOG) should be placed under DHS.  Well now everyone in DHS has a uniform, so they decided to provide outfits to this new *"GUN CULTURE"*, gotta have an outfit to shoot a gun. A Super Duper Ninja suit, all black with lighting bolts on the collar This means more dollars for the "Department of Guns" (DOG). 

Then those folks with their bright new guns and black outfits will look down on those *"Taxpayers"* that opt'd out, because they look different. They don't have the proper outfit.   So a little Government inspired discrimination takes place, shot's are fired..  Well President PeeWee decides he better disarm the Taxpayers (NO GUN folks).  More shot's are fired.  Surely all those folks clinging to their *Religion and Guns* are wrong, because most of them are also WASPs .....

After the 10 yr civil war, the WASPs are all dead, there are no longer anyone to work and pay taxes, because all these *other kind of folks* never knew how to work to start with.  They've been surviving on food stamps.......so the government is bankrupt.....Great Idea.....

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Let's see....we put this program in place.....the government buys a whole bunch of $400 guns, pays a $1,000 a piece for them....drives the price up for those that opt out of the program.  They hand out these Guns along with the free phone and food stamps.....


Nice rant, but you are forgetting that the country is about 40% Lefties.  They'd never let this program happen.

----------


## Old Navy

> Nice rant, but you are forgetting that the country is about 40% Lefties.  They'd never let this program happen.


I'm just supposin....I would Hope the Right would never let it happen either...

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I'm just supposin....I would Hope the Right would never let it happen either...


Ideas like this are fun, but like anarchists sitting in their parent's basement smoking pot and talking about "how great it would be if.....", this idea is fun to discuss but has a ZERO chance of ever being enacted.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Nice rant, but you are forgetting that the country is about 40% Lefties.  They'd never let this program happen.


Don't the PEW polls put America at roughly 20% liberal, 40% conservative, and 40% as too busy with World of Warcraft, Facebook and working a bong to care?

----------

usfan (11-16-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Don't the PEW polls put America at roughly 20% liberal, 40% conservative, and 40% as too busy with World of Warcraft, Facebook and working a bong to care?


I haven't seen that one, but would readily believe it!

----------


## Victory

> Let's see....we put this program in place.....the government buys a whole bunch of $400 guns, pays a $1,000 a piece for them....drives the price up for those that opt out of the program.  They hand out these Guns along with the free phone and food stamps.
> 
> Then the the Government needs 1000 bureaucrats to manage the list of folks that got guns and need training, so they hirer 20,000.  Then they have to hirer another 20,000 bureaucrats to keep track of those that opt'd out , because surely they have guns and need to be watched.    And coincidently are *Taxpayers* and most are NRA members.
> 
> Then they'll need about 5,000 lawyers to take care of the law suits when the they shoot themselves, or their neighbors.  So now we have a budget that rivals the defense department. 
> 
>   So now we have 45,000 more bureaucrats sucking on the Government Teat.   Paid with money the Government doesn't have. Then comes along another President PeeWee, who decides the "Department of Guns" (DOG) should be placed under DHS.  Well now everyone in DHS has a uniform, so they decided to provide outfits to this new *"GUN CULTURE"*, gotta have an outfit to shoot a gun. A Super Duper Ninja suit, all black with lighting bolts on the collar This means more dollars for the "Department of Guns" (DOG). 
> 
> Then those folks with their bright new guns and black outfits will look down on those *"Taxpayers"* that opt'd out, because they look different. They don't have the proper outfit.   So a little Government inspired discrimination takes place, shot's are fired..  Well President PeeWee decides he better disarm the Taxpayers (NO GUN folks).  More shot's are fired.  Surely all those folks clinging to their *Religion and Guns* are wrong, because most of them are also WASPs .....
> ...


You make it sound like a federal program.  It's not.  State by state.  One state at a time.

I think letting the National Guard handle issue and training might be a good idea.

Let the "militia" equip and train the real militia.  There's a lot of National Guard bases in the US.

http://goang.com/Careers/Explore/CO

----------


## Victory

> I'm just supposin....I would Hope the Right would never let it happen either...


Are we going to live up to the principles in the Constitution or aren't we?

If so, then the rest is just a matter of prioritizing.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Max the idea of a handgun is that it can be easily concealed, as in concealed carry, where a long gun may present a problem due to its length.
> As to a fire fight, you are correct though.  A pro in the business thought a pump action shotgun and  a revolver would be good choices for home defense. The revolver is supposed to be more reliable than other types of semi auto handguns.


The Second Amendment was not written to allow citizens to form roving bands of assassins, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow the citizen to openly correct extreme excesses of government.

----------


## Victory

> Ideas like this are fun, but like anarchists sitting in their parent's basement smoking pot and talking about "how great it would be if.....", this idea is fun to discuss but has a ZERO chance of ever being enacted.


As long as it's "fun."

It's not as crazy as it seems.  First of all, it's already a matter of history.  It can be resurrected again.  Second, gay marriage was a damn crazy idea about 4 years ago.  And now. . .

People have done a first class job at moving a (still) insane idea to the forefront of the culture in record time.  We've got to start acting bold to counter the ever increasing deteriorating culture and politics.  It doesn't get any easier than this.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> As long as it's "fun."
> 
> It's not as crazy as it seems.  First of all, it's already a matter of history.  It can be resurrected again.  Second, gay marriage was a damn crazy idea about 4 years ago.  And now. . .
> 
> People have done a first class job at moving a (still) insane idea to the forefront of the culture in record time.  We've got to start acting bold to counter the ever increasing deteriorating culture and politics.  It doesn't get any easier than this.


"Gay marriage" has been around for decades.  It's only come to "fruition" in the last few years.

A lot of things would have to change in this country before mandating or even allowing all adult citizens to receive a state-sponsored home defense weapon.   Change on the order of the Chinese invading California for example.

----------


## Victory

> "Gay marriage" has been around for decades.  It's only come to "fruition" in the last few years.
> 
> A lot of things would have to change in this country before mandating or even allowing all adult citizens to receive a state-sponsored home defense weapon.   Change on the order of the Chinese invading California for example.


Gay marriage was totally unacceptable in 2008 so much so that Senator Obama campaigned against it.  When 2012 came around he was for it and Romney was against it.  Now, you're a Neanderthal if you're against it.  That's a radical sea change in a short period of time.

We need a similar change in the culture in how people view guns.  That means bold action is required.

----------


## Victory

> Interesting concept, @Victory.  I'd probably not be in favor of something like this, because of too much govt involvement.. they tend to ruin any good ideas with implementation.  I'd prefer they stayed out of the way, minimally involved in our lives, & living on subsistence from minimal taxes.  Of course, it is their duty to protect the nation, but they usually use that as an excuse to fleece us & micromanage everything we do, under the pretext of security.


All true when talking about the federal government.  That's why I went more local.  Let the states be the labs as the Founders intended.  If one state has a good idea, other states will copy it.  This idea I had is a copycat idea from Kennesaw, Georgia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law

So not only has it been done in the Revolutionary War period but as late as 1982!  And guess what happened to crime in Kennesaw.  That's right.  You guessed it.  Went down.  So if I'm talking about Colorado, this idea has, as Max said, "ZERO chance of success."  But even that's debatable because if I were talking about Georgia the response instead would be, "Been there, done that.  What took you so long?"

I think you know and I know that Americans are a lot more conservative than is portrayed in the media.  That's another reason going local is a better idea.  Once you get up to the federal level you get into national politics, national money, and international influence.  Screw that!  I think we both know that at the grass roots level, people value their families, their loved ones, and their responsibilities.  This is where the fertile ground is for such an idea.  Let the real conservatives and the real Constitutionalists pass real laws like this.  If that means that states like Colorado, Georgia, Texas, and Kentucky pass a law like this while California, New York, and New Jersey reject it. . .then let 'em wallow in their ignorance and crime.  The criminals will take up residence in those states and bring the issue to a head there.  Good.  Californians and New Yorkers need to wake up to reality.

You want a big sea change like Max is talking about?  There you have it.

----------

usfan (11-17-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Gay marriage was totally unacceptable in 2008 so much so that Senator Obama campaigned against it. .....


Civil unions had existed in the US since 2000.  Three states had gay marriage in 2008.  Several gay marriage bans were overturned in states that same year or previously.   To say it was "totally unacceptable" is wrong.  To say the majority of the US were against "gay marriage" would be a truer statement.  Part of the problem, IMO, was the conflating of marriage as a religious institution, a First Amendment issue, and government legislation granting 1138 rights and benefits to married couples, a Fourteenth Amendment issue.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/ma...-marriage.aspx

----------


## teeceetx

> I was just thinking today about the 2nd Amendment and specifically the utter contortionist twisting that gun controllers and gun banners do when they conclude that the National Guard has assumed the role of "militia" in the 2nd Amendment.  What if we staunch defenders of the faith. . .cave in?  Sorta.
> 
> What if we lovers of the 2nd Amendment realize and embrace the truth that we have not lived up to the principles of the "militia" in the 2nd Amendment?  What if we recognize the fact that if the founders could see into the future to 2014 they would laugh at the state of what we call the "militia" and then cry at the bastardization of the term?  What if we were to do something about it that would address the gun banners' inappropriate use of the word "militia" while correcting the pathetic state of the real militia?
> 
> What would that correction look like?
> 
> Well, let's take a page from Switzerland.  Progressives love Europe.  So let's give 'em Switzerland!  For a long time Switzerland has issued rifles to their conscripted army.  Once the soldiers leave the Army they keep their rifle and are expected to keep it in good working order.  Oh and by the way, Switzerland has about the lowest incident of crime in the world.  So there is that.  I'm not talking about conscripting Americans.  I'm talking about issuing firearms to adults too old for the military and young adults when they return their selective service cards at 18 years old.
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp
> ...



Certainly a well thought out idea.  However.  The government doesn't _want_ anyone to be armed.  The Second Amendment exists to ensure that the population is armed in the event the government will need to be overthrown.  The framers didn't think people need guns for personal self defense, but they sure as hell need weapons to ensure the government can be deposed by force, if necessary.  The old saying sums it up succinctly:  An armed person is a citizen, an unarmed person is a subject".

----------

birddog (11-19-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> I am not concerned about the need for the people to rise up and put down a tyrannical government.  Furthermore it would be nearly an impossible task 
> to go at it solely with small arms fire.   Not that I want it, but there are Euro countries that are much more socialistic than we are and yet the quality of life is not all that bad for most people there.  We had visitors from northern England last summer, and the lady grew up in America.  I don't remember either of them complaining about their life in England.  In fact it seemed to be pretty laid back and care free compared to that of American families.


A padded slave collar with free snacks and an Obamaphone is still a slave collar.    

Yes, Europe likes it.   

Europeans aren't men, Americans are, except for the female Americans, who are women.

----------


## Victory

> I am not concerned about the need for the people to rise up and put down a tyrannical government.  Furthermore it would be nearly an impossible task 
> to go at it solely with small arms fire. *  Not that I want it, but there are Euro countries that are much more socialistic than we are and yet the quality of life is not all that bad for most people there*.  We had visitors from northern England last summer, and the lady grew up in America.  I don't remember either of them complaining about their life in England.  In fact it seemed to be pretty laid back and care free compared to that of American families.


The dirty little secret is that slave life in antebellum America generally speaking was also "not all that bad."  Happy slaves are productive slaves.  It wasn't until pictures of horse whipping scars, though few and far between, were made public that the nation really started turning against the South.  But "the quality of life was not all that bad for most slaves there."

Slavery was still a cause worth fighting a Civil War over.

Europeans do make good productive happy slaves.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> The dirty little secret is that slave life in antebellum America generally speaking was also "not all that bad."....


Slavery disturbed many in the US even as the Constitution was being written.  The only way to get the Constitution ratified was through compromise since the issue of slavery was a sticking point.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/slave05.htm
George Washington.-- _1st President.__ April 12, 1786, to Robert Morris: 
"I hope it will not be conceived, from these observations, that it is my wish to hold the unhappy people who are the subject of this letter in slavery. I can only say, that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it." 
_
John Adams.-- _2d President_ _His sentiments on the subject of slavery are well known. They are well summed up in the language of a letter to Robert I. Evans, June, 1819: 
"Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. 
"I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in such abhorrence, that I have never owned a negro or any other slave; though I have lived for many years in times when the practice was not disgraceful; when the best men in my vicinity thought it not inconsistent with their character; and when it has cost me thousands of dollars of the labor and subsistence of free men, which I might have saved by the purchase of negroes at times when they were very cheap."_

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...rs-and-Slavery
_Nevertheless, the Founders, with the exception of those from South Carolina and Georgia, exhibited considerable aversion to slavery during the era of the Articles of Confederation(178189) by prohibiting the importation of foreign slaves to individual states and lending their support to a proposal by Jefferson to ban slavery in the Northwest Territory. Such antislavery policies, however, only went so far. The prohibition of foreign slave imports, by limiting the foreign supply, conveniently served the interests of Virginia and Maryland slaveholders, who could then sell their own surplus slaves southward and westward at higher prices. Furthermore, the ban on slavery in the Northwest tacitly legitimated the expansion of slavery in the Southwest._

----------


## Victory

> Slavery disturbed many in the US even as the Constitution was being written.  The only way to get the Constitution ratified was through compromise since the issue of slavery was a sticking point.
> 
> http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/slave05.htm
> George Washington.-- _1st President.__ April 12, 1786, to Robert Morris: 
> "I hope it will not be conceived, from these observations, that it is my wish to hold the unhappy people who are the subject of this letter in slavery. I can only say, that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it." 
> _
> John Adams.-- _2d President_ _His sentiments on the subject of slavery are well known. They are well summed up in the language of a letter to Robert I. Evans, June, 1819: 
> "Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. 
> "I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in such abhorrence, that I have never owned a negro or any other slave; though I have lived for many years in times when the practice was not disgraceful; when the best men in my vicinity thought it not inconsistent with their character; and when it has cost me thousands of dollars of the labor and subsistence of free men, which I might have saved by the purchase of negroes at times when they were very cheap."_
> ...


All true.  The end of slavery was written into the Constitution.  January 1, 1808 was supposed to be a holiday celebrated as the day that slavery ended in America.  But soon after the Constitution was ratified people became complacent with their prosperity.  And then the Missouri Compromise was made.  And the Fugitive Slave Act.  And the Kansas-Nebraska Act.  And so on.  People became comfortable again with slavery and put us on a course to Civil War.

----------

