If the second amendment promises no infringement on firearms? (rating, federal, guns)

[monkeywrenching]

Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips

Because that was not the original intent of the framers. The original purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the right of the several states to control their militia's, and as a limitation of the power of the federal government over state militia’s under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15. At the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment, there was no standing army, and there was very real concern that the Constitution ceded too much power to Congress. However that has been largely made obsolete by time, as the National Guard is now an adjunct component of the United States Army Reserve. (Interestingly, an argument could be made that the deployment of State National Guard Units to Iraq and Afghanistan violates the Second Amendment.)

the national guard in our founding fathers day would have been considered the tories or the hessians.

[Felix C]

^^^Addressing post #90

In that case, the private ownership of firearms is not even an issue. Private property not to be infringed upon as would a horse, axe, livestock, table, chair.

But if 2nd Amend. is as you indicate then the federalizing reform of NG troops in/about 1903 would have raised constitutional questions.

[monkeywrenching]

Originally Posted by Felix C

^^^Addressing post #90

In that case, the private ownership of firearms is not even an issue. Private property not to be infringed upon as would a horse, axe, livestock, table, chair.

But if 2nd Amend. is as you indicate then the federalizing reform of NG troops in/about 1903 would have raised constitutional questions.

the Militia is formed in about 4 different type of militias. organized which is considered the NG, the unorganized militia is everyone else ages 14-death.

[Mac_Muz]

In terms of the 18th century speak arms means fire arms and fire arms means guns one man can hold in his hands.

So other assorted legal weapons don't come under the same class of hand held weapons.

[Felix C]

^^Thanks.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

You can always tell when leftist fanatics have lost the debate. They start ranting hysterically, like that.

Nah, i just want you to do your best to fuel the economy.

[Harrier]

Is it legal to set ones arm on fire and walk down the street?

Wouldn't that be considered bearing a firearm?

Does the firearm become an "assault weapon" if one tries to ignite another?

Did the firearm commit the assault or did the mind in control of the firearm do so?

How would a law regulate "high capacity magazines" in such an instance?

Would that mean a ban on wrapping more than 10 copies of Playboy for instance around the arm to fuel the conflagration?

Is destroying that magazine such a bad thing - or would one be accused of a hate crime for discriminating against porn producers?

[PullMyFinger]

Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips

Because that was not the original intent of the framers. The original purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the right of the several states to control their militia's, and as a limitation of the power of the federal government over state militia’s under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15. At the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment, there was no standing army, and there was very real concern that the Constitution ceded too much power to Congress. However that has been largely made obsolete by time, as the National Guard is now an adjunct component of the United States Army Reserve. (Interestingly, an argument could be made that the deployment of State National Guard Units to Iraq and Afghanistan violates the Second Amendment.)

Using NG units seems to be a fairly new thing. I remember when my older brother joined our NG it was a good thing because chances are it would keep him from Vietnam at the time and it did. Now it seems the NG units are the first to be deployed overseas. I wonder why that happened?

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by Harrier

Is it legal to set ones arm on fire and walk down the street?

Wouldn't that be considered bearing a firearm?

Does the firearm become an "assault weapon" if one tries to ignite another?

Did the firearm commit the assault or did the mind in control of the firearm do so?

How would a law regulate "high capacity magazines" in such an instance?

Would that mean a ban on wrapping more than 10 copies of Playboy for instance around the arm to fuel the conflagration?

Is destroying that magazine such a bad thing - or would one be accused of a hate crime for discriminating against porn producers?

I think you might need to increase you medical dosage.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

I think you might need to increase you medical dosage.

Can you answer my questions?