2nd Amendment lecture

[PhilpotHunter]

Well, last night in Owensboro there was a lecture open to the public by a nationally recognized speaker from Ohio. It was advertised as how both gun control activists, and gun rights activist had it wrong, and how he would explain by showing the history of the second amendment and its changes over the years that neither side was right, and how if we went on how it was supposed to be, both sides would be upset.

I went thinking I would learn something new, and if nothing else learn a little about the history of gun rights. The lecture was at KWC in Owensboro.

He started by separating the two sides, collective rights vs. individual rights. He then lectured for 45 minutes on why the founding fathers didn't want individual rights (a stance that gun control activists take). It was hard for me to sit there and listen without saying anything, but I figured I would let him get to the other side of the story (remember, it was advertised as BOTH sides of the debate) before I spoke up. HE came to the end of being VERY collective rights on the issue, and BAM, his lecture was open and he was ready for questions!!! I felt jipped. This guy came saying he had an unbiased historical opinion, when all he had was a strong desire to TAKE MY GUNS.

The room was mostly filled with college students there for extra credit, but myself and another gentleman jumped right in. As soon as he was confronted with intelligent well thought out questions that tested his theories he started to crumble......

One of his answers to gun control is to make EVERY gun owner in America buy into a national insurance program!!!:eek: Depending on how many guns, and how likely you are to kill someone would set your premieums......But when pushed further, he couldn't produce any details, and he reverted to comparing our founding fathers and our current leaders (a woolly mammoth to little furry rats, no joke).

I actually am glad I was there if for no other reason to be able to practice my debating skills with a so called "expert" on the subject, and to see how weak his argument really was.

[mwezell]

Thanks for speaking up,philpot!!!!

[killinmammals]

yeah I had heard something that there was going to be a lecture. Wish I could have gone to it. Glad you and some others spoke up against that guy

[trust me]

Thanks for standing up for the rest of us, Philpot.

How did the college kids react? Any of them speak up one way or the other?

[Wildcat]

Thanks for speaking up!!

Those so called speakers have been going around colleges for years and they bill themselves as "experts".

One thing that caught my eye right off is when you said, "history of the second amendment and its changes over the years "

I wasn't aware of ANY CHANGES of the Second Amendment, as far as I know it's still word for word the way it was written.

Something else. People say they research the Founding Fathers and how they did this and that "there for they must have met this and that".

Guess what, it does not mater one bit when it comes to the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

It is all good to study the Founding Fathers and history and what kind of men they were and how they did things as well as what they beleived in. BUT it is NOT what they wrote in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and THAT is all that maters.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is what was voted on and became the law of the land. History could show all of them were drunks but that does not mater, they didn't vote on that.

This brings up something else. Conservatives believe in keeping the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights as WAS WRITTEN BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS. That's where we get our name from, to conserve, to protect, perserve. Just like sportsmen want to conserve the natural resources.

Liberalism on the other hand beleive the Constitution is a living thing and should be changed according to the mod of the day.

The Founding Fathers forsaw that there would be needed changes down the road and put it in the Constitution how to make the changes though Amendments. They also made it much harder to pass an Amendment than a simple law. The average time for each of the Amendments to pass from first puting it up has been 7 years.

The trouble is that's not fast enough for some people and they know certain things will never have much of a chance to pass as an Amendment.

[aceoky]

Yes , thank you for speaking up for all of us Philpot! Great job and kudos for going and having the nerve to do so.

It's my opinion, that through the use of these so called "experts", they figure they can "condition" the younger college folks to "buy into " the "living breathing document BS........IF they succeed it will be very bad for us.....:eek:

It means what it says, and says what it means...........However, given the wrong very liberal Supreme Court justices sitting on the Supreme Court.....IF they ever say otherwise, well, that could well be the beginning of the end.

And once the first one "falls" it's all downhill from there, and fast IMHO.......

THAT is why it's VERY important who gets elected President, the REAL power lies in appointing Federal Judges, get a bunch of liberal gun-grabbing judges and see what happens to our rights.........

[Multidigits]

Who sponsored the lecture to begin with????

[turk2di]

Who sponsored the lecture to begin with????

Excellent question & when or where is this lecture headed too next:mad:

[PhilpotHunter]

Who sponsored the lecture to begin with????

There is a local grant "The Robert H. and Alma J. Wade Endowment Fund", that brings in speakers from time to time at the collge. Kentucky Weslyan College in Owensboro. Here is what was written about it:


Saul Cornell, a noted writer and a leading interpreter of the Second Amendment, will be the guest speaker for the next Wade lecture at 7 p.m. Thursday in Tapscott Chapel at Kentucky Wesleyan College.


Cornell, an associate professor of history at Ohio State University, wrote, "A Well-Regulated Militia: the Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control." He also has written several other books.


He will be talking about the book, which contends that both sides of the issue have the story wrong and have a misunderstanding of history.


"In other words, if we went back in history to when our forefathers were establishing this, it would be a nightmare for both gun owners and gun control proponents," Cornell said in a phone interview Monday. "There would be much higher levels of regulation and much more militarization."


The speaker has been widely interviewed on the right to bear arms, with his views featured in the New York Times and Washington Post and in a broadcast piece on "The Newshour" on PBS.


Cornell was the director of the Second Amendment Research Center at the John Glenn Institute in 2002 and 2003 and received the Cincinnati History Book Prize, the Triennial Award for the Best Book on the American Revolution in 2001.


"Everyone reads history for little pieces to support their own agenda," Cornell said.


The historian will explain the founding fathers' agenda.


Cornell has studied at the University of Sussex and has a B.A. from Amherst College and an M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania.

He joined the Ohio State faculty in 1991 after teaching at College of William and Mary. In 1995 he was the Thomas Jefferson Chair at the University of Leiden in The Netherlands.

The college students were being typical young adults. He was using satire in his lecture, and when he laughed, he prompted everyone else to laugh with him. Well, I wasn't laughing at most of his VERY LEFT slanted jokes and puns, and when I looked at some of the kids you could tell they didn't know why the were laughing, just that they were becuase it seemed they should.

He used a lot of statitistics that he took out of context, and when I called him on it he couldn't back anything up. He would flop around a little then go off in a different direction without touching the original question.

I'm more than a little disappointed with it. I really was interested from what I had read the event was about, but to get there is this guy be so obviously slanted made me wonder why the college didn't check him out first? Or atleast write the article truthfully.

[PhilpotHunter]

Who would have thought it would have been "ole left wing Pooty" debating the liberal on gun control??

I told my wife last night that I was distraught with reality lately......then I whispered so no one could hear me......I think I'm becoming a damn republican:(

[trust me]

......I think I'm becoming a damn republican:(

It's OK, Pooty...we're here for you.

[aceoky]

It's OK, Pooty...we're here for you.

"tis true, never fear! ;)

[Multidigits]

......I think I'm becoming a damn republican:(


I'll go out on a limb here and predict that the speaker IS NOT ONE.

[yote hunter]

Who would have thought it would have been "ole left wing Pooty" debating the liberal on gun control??

I told my wife last night that I was distraught with reality lately......then I whispered so no one could hear me......I think I'm becoming a damn republican:(
way to go philpot.your on your way.i predict in about 5 years you wont be a republican but you wont a democrate either.:)

[Wildcat]

Who would have thought it would have been "ole left wing Pooty" debating the liberal on gun control??

I told my wife last night that I was distraught with reality lately......then I whispered so no one could hear me......I think I'm becoming a damn republican

Good for you, you stood up for gun rights.

Makes a big difference when you see a liberal in person working the crowds and know what you know as a hunter and gun owner. I've always said TV, the print paper and the internet are one thing but when being some where in person and seeing what's going on, it opens you eyes.

[PhilpotHunter]

I'll go out on a limb here and predict that the speaker IS NOT ONE.

Yeah, you nailed that one. Before the end of the lecture he compared the founding fathers (as whooly mammoths) to the current administration (as little rats).

If you guys think I am a liberal, then Wildcat, i found your anti christ:eek:

[kevhunter]

Who would have thought it would have been "ole left wing Pooty" debating the liberal on gun control??

I told my wife last night that I was distraught with reality lately......then I whispered so no one could hear me......I think I'm becoming a damn republican:(

There may be hope for you yet!!:)

[slickhead slayer]

......then I whispered so no one could hear me......I think I'm becoming a damn republican:(

There comes a time in every boys life where he becomes a man, it looks like your taking that step.;)

Just kidding with ya of course.:D

[PhilpotHunter]

Just kidding with ya of course.:D

Of course:rolleyes:

[eddiejohn4]

Thank you for attending and taking a stand. If one reads the forefathers thoughts on the right to bear arms ,they are adament about why the 2nd amendment shall not be infringed.

If any one says any different then they are not going by the words of our forefathers. And their agenda is of their own.:)

These words are easily researched for ones self.

[MsgMills]

Come on over to the Republican side there Pooty, we take side jumpers as well as new members that come up with age from birth.... lol

[slow-bow]

A personal thanks from me, Philpot! I appreciate and respect a man who isn't afraid to "stand up and be counted!"

[KY OUTLAW]

thanks for sticking up for us all . wish i could have been there to help

[mossyhorns]

Sir Winston Churchill said that anyone under 30 who is not a liberal "has no heart," but anyone over 30 who is not a conservative "has no head."

The truest example of a "well regulated militia" were Ethan Allen's Green Mountain Boys -- a group of locals who banded together to thwart a British advance and played a pivotal roll in the war for independence. Thanks to the incremental approach to gun regulation, the first perversion of the 2nd Amendment was the assumption that "arms" referred to all firearms -- hunting and military alike. The Supreme Court was prepared to concede that the right to keep and bear arms spoken of in the 2nd Amendment was the right for the ordinary citizen to keep military weapons in anticipation of such a situation as the Green Mountain Boys faced and had no bearing on hunting firearms or the typical firearms that a person of that time period would own. Unfortunately, in the first challenge to the 1936 Firearms Act, the plaintiff did not make an appearance before the court and the "military arms" argument was never presented.

It should also be noted that a "well regulated militia" has nothing to do with the National Guard which is an instrument of the State and did not exist during the time frame of the Constitution. A "well-regulated militia" was simply a group of concerned citizens who would own there own weapons and would organize around their own local leader -- a group that could be directed to provide assistance to the military command when circumstances dictated. The "right of the people" being an individual right extended to everyone, the drafters of the Constitution intended for each person, if he or she so desired, to be capable of owning their own standard military hardware.

It is very far-fetched to assume that the drafters of the Constitution would ever consider the notion that the Federal Government would interfere with a citizen's right to own a very necessary firearm for hunting and or personal protection.

[Xi Bowhunter]

Who would have thought it would have been "ole left wing Pooty" debating the liberal on gun control??

I told my wife last night that I was distraught with reality lately......then I whispered so no one could hear me......I think I'm becoming a damn republican:(
Nooooooooooooooooooooo! Don't do it! Some of us HAVE to stay in sane reality:D

[grouser68]

National Guard Birthday. The Oldest Component of the Armed Forces of the United States December 13, 1636

[Art]

For the record Philpot, I have never thought of you as a liberal. You just don't fit the mold well enough. You may be a democrat but that doesn't mean that you are that far from the fence.:D

[PhilpotHunter]

You may be a democrat but that doesn't mean that you are that far from the fence.:D

I help keep the fence post from tipping over one way or the other (post holes to large).

[Art]

I help keep the fence post from tipping over one way or the other (post holes to large).

I feel the same way about myself.:D Post holes......I always miss the good stuff!:mad: I don't know how since I'm on here 23 hrs a day.

[aceoky]

Sir Winston Churchill said that anyone under 30 who is not a liberal "has no heart," but anyone over 30 who is not a conservative "has no head."

The truest example of a "well regulated militia" were Ethan Allen's Green Mountain Boys -- a group of locals who banded together to thwart a British advance and played a pivotal roll in the war for independence. Thanks to the incremental approach to gun regulation, the first perversion of the 2nd Amendment was the assumption that "arms" referred to all firearms -- hunting and military alike. The Supreme Court was prepared to concede that the right to keep and bear arms spoken of in the 2nd Amendment was the right for the ordinary citizen to keep military weapons in anticipation of such a situation as the Green Mountain Boys faced and had no bearing on hunting firearms or the typical firearms that a person of that time period would own. Unfortunately, in the first challenge to the 1936 Firearms Act, the plaintiff did not make an appearance before the court and the "military arms" argument was never presented.

It should also be noted that a "well regulated militia" has nothing to do with the National Guard which is an instrument of the State and did not exist during the time frame of the Constitution. A "well-regulated militia" was simply a group of concerned citizens who would own there own weapons and would organize around their own local leader -- a group that could be directed to provide assistance to the military command when circumstances dictated. The "right of the people" being an individual right extended to everyone, the drafters of the Constitution intended for each person, if he or she so desired, to be capable of owning their own standard military hardware.

It is very far-fetched to assume that the drafters of the Constitution would ever consider the notion that the Federal Government would interfere with a citizen's right to own a very necessary firearm for hunting and or personal protection.

VERY well said!

[grouser68]

VERY well said! Mossy's post was a good one, just missed one fact. The National Guard was formed on Dec. 13th 1636, One hundred and forty years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

[aceoky]

Mossy's post was a good one, just missed one fact. The National Guard was formed on Dec. 13th 1636, One hundred and forty years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Even better!! That destroys the stance they meant the National Guard, IF they did, they would have stated it as such :)

One question though, I have to wonder why they needed a National guard before there was a Nation to guard??

[grouser68]

Even better!! That destroys the stance they meant the National Guard, IF they did, they would have stated it as such :)

One question though, I have to wonder why they needed a National guard before there was a Nation to guard??

I can't remember the exact unit,but it was a Mass. Guard unit that still exists today. Why did they need the Guard? I dunno, but they did have one.They were'nt called the Natioanl Guard until later, but that was just a name change.

[aceoky]

I can't remember the exact unit,but it was a Mass. Guard unit that still exists today. Why did they need the Guard? I dunno, but they did have one.They were'nt called the Natioanl Guard until later, but that was just a name change.

When did the name change take place??

[Wildcat]

Here you go.

"The history of the National Guard began on December 13, 1636, when the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony ordered the organization of the Colony's militia companies into three regiments: the North, South and East Regiments. The colonists had adopted the English militia system which obligated all males, between the ages of 16 and 60, to possess arms and participate in the defense of the community. The early colonial militia drilled once a week and provided guard details each evening to sound the alarm in case of attack. The growing threat of the Pequot Indians to the Massachusetts Bay Colony required that the militia be in a high state of readiness. The organization of the North, South and East Regiments increased the efficiency and responsiveness of the militia. Although the exact date is not known, the first muster of the East Regiment took place in Salem, Massachusetts. The 101st Engineer Battalion, Massachusetts Army National Guard, continues the East Regiment's proud heritage of 350 years of service."

The modern National Guard started with the Militia Act of 1903.

[gwhilikerz]

Here you go.

"The history of the National Guard began on December 13, 1636, when the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony ordered the organization of the Colony's militia companies into three regiments: the North, South and East Regiments. The colonists had adopted the English militia system which obligated all males, between the ages of 16 and 60, to possess arms and participate in the defense of the community. The early colonial militia drilled once a week and provided guard details each evening to sound the alarm in case of attack. The growing threat of the Pequot Indians to the Massachusetts Bay Colony required that the militia be in a high state of readiness. The organization of the North, South and East Regiments increased the efficiency and responsiveness of the militia. Although the exact date is not known, the first muster of the East Regiment took place in Salem, Massachusetts. The 101st Engineer Battalion, Massachusetts Army National Guard, continues the East Regiment's proud heritage of 350 years of service."

The modern National Guard started with the Militia Act of 1903.

Wonder if those guys were under orders not to engage the enemy but to retreat and call the border patrol? Sorry, I'm still fuming about that incident on the border.

[aceoky]

Thanks Wildcat....

[Wildcat]

Wonder if those guys were under orders not to engage the enemy but to retreat and call the border patrol? Sorry, I'm still fuming about that incident on the border.


No, but they did help with the witch trails and the hanging of the witches.

[mossyhorns]

Shouldn't have stopped hanging witches -- now we have Hillary.:(

[aceoky]

GOOD point mossyhorns! :)