Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
actually there was no restrictions on arms at the time. remember citizens could own cannons, ships of the line, etc. as well as pistols, rifles, etc.
Civilians made and produced rapid fire weapons, too.
Civilians always had better arms than our standing army. The army nor the government didn't make guns. The people did and always had better weaponry, until the government could afford to buy the newest, latest greatest. The wealthy had the latest and the greatest. Just like today. They can afford it and can get it, or have it made for them.
Founders had no problem with gun control. And certainly did not consider it some personal right. Jefferson and Madison for example banned all weapons at the University of Virginia.
We have a large standing army. There is no need for a militia to defend the country and has not been for a century or more. The need for people to access their weapons for service in the militia no longer exists.
Your whole argument at this point is pointless.
And it is interesting that the courts have basically found you cannot write a law that does not have exceptions. I am inclined to believe that even if the writers included a clause that there would be no exceptions the courts would simply override it as well. So there is effectively no such thing as an absolute permission or prohibition.
do you enjoy being wrong all the time on this subject? you still dont get it do you, the second amendment was written specifically to PREVENT the government from restricting firearms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469 If you want the weapons of 1776 then go for it. But our forefathers wrote the constitution when they used muskets and bayonets. They had no idea the carnage this would create in the future with the sophistication of guns.<>
still pushing that tired old line of the founders couldnt see the future arent you. you have been proven wrong so many times i think you enjoy being wrong.
Founders had no problem with gun control. And certainly did not consider it some personal right. Jefferson and Madison for example banned all weapons at the University of Virginia.
We have a large standing army. There is no need for a militia to defend the country and has not been for a century or more. The need for people to access their weapons for service in the militia no longer exists.
Your whole argument at this point is pointless.
And it is interesting that the courts have basically found you cannot write a law that does not have exceptions. I am inclined to believe that even if the writers included a clause that there would be no exceptions the courts would simply override it as well. So there is effectively no such thing as an absolute permission or prohibition.
Hitler had a standing army. So did Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Castro...
Apparently liberals in here think Trump is hitler... isn't that more the reason to have access to everything the military has short of nukes to keep him from sending the death squads to round them all up
cool so RPGs and armed drones should be legal for all citizens too using your logic
where exactly SHOULD the cut off be T206? hmm, got an answer, or do you think it should just be a free for all...
MOAB? is that your limit? come on T206 it is a real question. where SHOULD the cutoff be?
Already answered this question before you posed the question. Someone asked a similar question and my response to you would essentially be the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206
Did the Vietnamese "need" tanks and war ships to severely push back our armed troops? Besides that, yes, I'm fine that the government has nukes and I don't, if they decide to use them against me, even if I had them AND got to use them, most of us would be dead so individual liberties are kind of out the window at that point. Tactically speaking too, where would it make sense for a country to use nukes domestically. Would they want to take over or reside next to land inches from the borders of a nuclear waste land? Its not logical.
I will take it one step further though and say that my right to arms doesn't allow me to kill others, and most of the extreme examples you give there require only one "trigger pull" to kill many many people, which would mean I was likely killing innocent people, which is not something I'm given the right to do...kill innocent people that is.
Hitler had a standing army. So did Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Castro...
Apparently liberals in here think Trump is hitler... isn't that more the reason to have access to everything the military has short of nukes to keep him from sending the death squads to round them all up
There are offensive weapons and defensive weaponry. I would not consider a Nuke or Chemical weaponry as defensive .
Civilians made and produced rapid fire weapons, too. Civilians always had better arms than our standing army. The army nor the government didn't make guns. The people did and always had better weaponry, until the government could afford to buy the newest, latest greatest. The wealthy had the latest and the greatest. Just like today. They can afford it and can get it, or have it made for them.
I have to agree. The arms that are sold to the government are through civilian run corporations.
For the purpose of being a member of the militia. Says nothing about arms for non militia purposes. It is clear that the citizen also had rights to "keep" arms at home. But outside of that it would appear regulation was in place and allowable. So the 2nd does guarantee a right to "keep and bear" for a specific purpose - the militia. As soon though as you are outside that sphere it does not apply.
It says "the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed." meaning that the private individual can own and carry firearms. Every other right that says "the people" it always refer to the individual. Why would the second amendment be any different?
If you want the weapons of 1776 then go for it. But our forefathers wrote the constitution when they used muskets and bayonets. They had no idea the carnage this would create in the future with the sophistication of guns. If they were alive today, writing the constitution....this amendment wouldn't even be in the constitution.
You misunderstand completely. The Amendment is about the right of self-defense. People have the right to possess whatever arms other people/governments have. The power and destructiveness of those weapons don't change the calculus in the least.
And before you throw out the "nuclear weapons" objection, I'm fully willing to see such weapons eliminated from this planet so that no one has any.
Last edited by hbdwihdh378y9; 10-22-2017 at 08:06 AM..
Point to where it excludes firearms. If you don't even know what "arms" means why are you bothering to post? Oh, liberal, of course. When the constitution was written "arms" clearly included firearms.
merriam-webster.com
Definition of arm
1 a :a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially :firearm
Anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at or strike at another. Co. Litt. 1616, 162a; State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. 18. This term, as it Is used in the constitution, relative to the right of citizens to bear arms, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols, and carbine; of the artillery, the field-piece, siegegun, and mortar, with side arms. The term, in this connection, cannot be made to cover such weapons as dirks, daggers, slung-shots, sword- canes, brass knuckles, and bowieknives. These are not military arms.
Clearlyfirearms are considered 'arms'.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
