“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm ... is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”

Exactly right. Real laws, real ethics, real principles.

WOW ! ! ! a common sense stated. We hold this truth to be self evident. YES

We should send this to the senators of all the New England states.

Here ya go Cal, the latest developments: http://www.gunweek.com/

Cal how about the Western States who were the first ones to restrict the reckless in the wild wild west. The west is where towns and villages took action against gun slingers. The guns were made in the east but the west took the action to control them. Now in Arizona an open carry state, proprietors are having to put up signs that say "No guns allowed". What is going to stop a 90 pound weakling from having his gun taken away by a 250 lb bar drunk. I don't think having drunks all carrying guns is a good idea. The quote is still basically correct but I suggest the gallows is the only answer, not prison for the cowards and dishonorable. I know that in friendly local bar say like Cheers if a guy comes in and lays his 45 on the bar or has it handy by his side the place just is not going to be the same anymore. Why do folk want to scary people like this. Guns should be used, handled and shown discreetly.

The right to bear arms is NOT a Constitutional right. It is a God-given right that is recognized in the Constitution.

Perhaps we should put some things into context here. The Constitution is a charter of the States to form a federal (not national -- there is a difference) government. The Constitution defines and delineates the powers of the government. Any power authorized (not granted!) to the government is either specifically listed or is not authorized by the People. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution tells Congress that they may NOT make ANY law that abridges the right to carry arms. It does not create a right, it acknowledges the right but specifically prohibits Congress from making ANY law that prohibits this right. Now, on my property, and in my sovereign capacity, I may prohibit others from carrying arms on my property -- if they don't like it, then they can stay off -- period! Therefore a bar owner may require his patrons check their guns at the door.

In a true Constitutional Republic, the sovereign citizen carries the responsibilities of his/her life and is therefore 'free' to live it as he/she sees fit AND bears the consequences of his/her actions as well as the fruits of their labors. In a statist theocracy (thanks, Mike), the citizens are not sovereign but subjects, not responsible but liable, not owners but owned, and have no rights but privileges only as granted by the arbitrary will of the State -- and when I say 'State' I mean other people who believe their office elevates them higher than the individual.

This collectivist tyranny has many forms but invariably is structured underneath an aristocratical coterie of the super-rich -- even Bill Gates is not among them, in fact every 'dollar' Bill Gates has is a dollar owed to this coterie. This group operates covertly and is indeed responsible for the deaths of hundreds and hundreds of MILLIONS of lives over the last century. And once a nation's citizens give up their weapons, their servitude and destruction has been less than a generation away. The power is with the People, not their legislatures -- and when their legislators write laws making their own crimes 'legal' we the people do not have to obey -- in fact, we MUST disobey. Before we start hanging the little thieves may I suggest we hang the big ones first.

Waffler, I spent enough time in Arizona in the early 80s to have taken up residency. The signs you refer to have been on most businesses since the 1800s (see Archer's explanation). I've heard it said, if you drink, you're never without a friend. My experience was, if you carry a gun (in a bar, grocery store - even in line, movie rental, etc.) you're never without a friend. The open gun policy, though I didn't have one on me, made me more secure, not afraid. So, in well over 100 years of open gun policy, I haven't heard too much of the light weight weakling getting his gun taken away by the big drunk and abused with it. I have heard where gun regulations are most restrictive, crime is much higher (New York, Washington DC, etc.).

The point is Mike proprietors and people don't want guns laying around their bars and places of public accomodation now or in 1800. This is just common sense. So why are gun nuts trying to screw up things and go against plain common sense. Carlton comments on my way or abiltiy of putting things. I suggest that I am just using palin old common sense. I think we need much more of it and we can solve a lot of problems caused by ideological labeling and name calling.

Waffler, what you call plain old common sense is in fact in the real world called, non sense. Only in the borg collective world is what you say common. My point was, even though many large chains and smaller merchants may display, 'check you guns' signs, that is almost universally for the politically correct outsider's consumption. The proprietors, merchants and individuals within the places of public accommodation I've personally spoken with felt safer and more at ease when gun totting customers were in the place of business. People carrying guns are very approachable and amenable to explain concerning why they're carrying. You've been watching way too much borg collective influenced media. You've been quite explicit about needing more statist theocracy enforcement of collectivist tyranny. Once all join the borg collective (by force or otherwise) you believe all will be love and bliss.

Waffler, I comment on the angle you take on most things as being more or less obscure and designed to suit your own anti-gun / anti-liberty / anti-American agenda. You sir, are a communist and everything you say proves that. Who's going to stop a 250 lb. drunk from taking a gun from a 90 lb. weakling? Why the 90 lb. weakling of course! That's what guns do, they make everyone the same size.I too lived in Arizona for many years. I felt safer and found it to be a more polite society than most places.

NO GUNS - NO MURDERS?.........
NO DRUGS - NO OVERDOSES?..........
ANY QUESTIONS???

This is in the dream world of a liberal. The sad thing is THEY actually believe this to be possible! It might be possible, IF the WHOLE WORLD agrees to this also AND the majority of the liberals would abide by it. (We know since drugs are illegal, liberals don't do drugs, RIGHT)!

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Machiavelli, in his introduction to The Prince, wrote that he would speak of things, not as they should be, but as they are. The simple fact is that making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain firearms will not reduce firearms violence. What is my proof of this? Empirical evidence, the experiments having been done in the cities of New York and Chicago, where gun laws are highly restrictive, have higher rates of firearms violence per capita than in those municipalities that have less restrictive ordinances. Are there other factors besides gun ownership? Probably. Poverty, drugs, mental health issues, unemployment and poor education are among the possible factors. However, those other factors would likely be present in the other municipalities also.

I want to add one more comment, about the source of the quote. I looked up Wilson V. State in the wikipedia link below, and it turns out to be a case about underage consensual sex. Not sure what exactly that has to do with firearms.

Bill R: Wilson V State of Arkansas - http://www.guncite.com/court/state/33ar557.html