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.
Well-regula(ted) as in well-regula(rized), i.e., distributed, ubiquitous, everywhere, ever vigilant. The militia is everyone.
"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
— Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
Would you not classify a 50mm as a small, practical, light, mobile, affordable cannon?
I would, but it's not a weapon for defensive purposes. Arms... traditionally were for protection. The intent of the framers was not create armies of one, but to create an army for the common defense. The intent is to uphold the right of people to defend themselves.
Again a study of the word "arms" is very enlightening. There can also be a discussion about offensive military weapons owned and kept by individuals, but both are two very distinct different situations.
The intent of the framers was not create armies of one, but to create an army for the common defense. The intent is to uphold the right of people to defend themselves.
The intent of the writers of the Bill of Rights holistically was to recognize God-given rights to personal defense against violence, including tyranny. Defended en masse or individually. Various historical quotes you're provided upthread are clear on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn
The intent of the framers was not create armies of one, but to create an army for the common defense.
The founders were wary of standing armies, but that's another thread.
I never enjoyed the taste of crow, however.... *I'm sure not suggesting the second amendment allows for unlimited ownership or weapons... right?
Cannons were and still are used for ceremonies, but for what purpose would and individual own a cannon? Small ones taht could be mounted stationary and employed like a large shot gun might be used by an individual... but come on, It takes multiple people to operate on let alone move one. It's not arms in the traditional sense.
That why it's not arms ... the regulation of such weapons is governed by common law and regulated.
My uncle has a working cannon in Colorado. They use flour and paint shells but will shoot anything.
Muzzle-loading cannons themselves, however, are – remarkably – not deemed to be firearms in the U.S. and are therefore not regulated
It is surprisingly quick to load with one guy.
One can own a grenade launcher too but it might be pricey. Now THERE is a deer hunters dream.
...
Of course a complete ban would not be politically possible at this time...we have to settle for partial bans, such as assault-style weapons and other dangers such as the carbine, the magnum, the 9mm, the 475 Limbaugh, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
...
Now what the heck is the 475 Limbaugh? And why are you so opposed to a carbine, 9mm, and a magnum?
I honestly don't know a lot about the 475 Limbaugh. It came up in another thread where a poster said he owned one, and that it was even more powerful than a magnum. That would make it quite possibly the most powerful gun on planet earth. The poster referred to it as a "monster."
The carbine, 9mm, and magnum are all particularly powerful weapons that are favored by drug cartels. They all belong in the hands of POLICE ONLY. These are weapons that are designed for the mass slaughter of innocents.
......They all belong in the hands of POLICE ONLY. These are weapons that are designed for the mass slaughter of innocents.
Well, seeing how the police are civilians and not the military, if the police have them, so should the public.
As far as a revolver designed for the mass slaughter of innocents, well, two things.
First.....you got to be kidding me!
But second, if not, if you want to outlaw revolvers, well, there is just no pleasing, is there? We hear people saying that civilians shouldn't have semi automatic pistols and now you are saying that we shouldn't have types of revolvers, either..........
...........is it any wonder that we don't trust the other side at all?
Last edited by TamaraSavannah; 12-19-2019 at 02:29 PM..
We're on the same side of the issue at hand, however the framers never intended for individual to have "offensive' weapons... that would be the place of a well regulated militia or military, for the common defense. The second amendment speaks of ''arms". Anything beyond the right to bear arms falls on the burden of common law, not the 2nd amendment, and therefore can be regulated. The right to keep and bear arms can not be infringed.
Arms is a word that best translates as weapons that can be held individually and used for defensive purposes.
It's a worthy discussion for sure.
Again, prove what you claim the Framers never intended by quoting laws that forbid the citizenry from owning "offensive weapons".
If they didn't intend this, why didn't they enforce it?
California defined! Ammo bans, back ground checks on ammo. Yet, they have zero ways to enforce people not obtaining ammo. It's all about the symbolism because stupid people don't delve deep enough into any of it to know any better. But, they can still vote.
SCOTUS will always be there to override such foolishness.
Because everyone knows how the US Supreme Court loves to jump on a 2A case.
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.
