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.
The second amendment has had so many interpretations through the years that it basically "means" whatever you want it to mean.
The Heller decision basically said it (2A) meant you could have guns for personal protection. Which of course is what the OP said it wasn't about.
Nobody has a clue about what the Founding Fathers "thought" about modern day weaponry because they never envisioned it from what I can tell...Is there any evidence that they even tried to do so?
We know we "have the right to bear arms"... but we have no clue about what the hell forming a "well regulated militia" means these days. If for no other reason, we have no idea who the founding fathers intended to "regulate" said militia.
Now. I expect a lot of word speak from hard core 2As who are going to try to explain a "well regulated militia"...and they will fail to do anything but confuse the issue further.
I much prefer that 2Aers who say go with that grammar interpretation. Something about how "the declarative phase is trumps the preparatory phase...and therefore the first part of the amendment doesn't count". I don't know how the founding fathers might of felt about that but I bet Grammar teachers everywhere are proud.
You're really sure of yourself, for someone who's completely wrong.
There's no question about the intent of the founders. They wrote that stuff down. You just have to read it. Yeah, I know, it's boring to read, but not being interested doesn't absolve you of the responsibility, if you're going to engage in these discussions and dispute reality.
Look, this is really, really simple. All political power rests with the body which can impose the most force. A self governing society, which is what this country was founded as and what it still sort of is, must be able to overpower the government should the government get wonky. Enter the 2nd Amendment.
If you believe the founders would have cared about AR-15s, you're right. They'd be asking why we can't have the full auto versions that the military has, how we allowed the government to effectively take them away from us and why we haven't revolted yet.
Just try to get into the head of these guys. They'd just risked literally everything to break away from an oppressive government, so they could govern themselves. If you want to argue that they supported big government with absolute power over the populace (which is what they have if we're disarmed), you need to support that assertion with more than just an attitude, because it defies both written history and simple logic.
I'm okay with citizens being only allowed to carry mukets or muzzle loaders. But then the police, government and military have to limit themselves to the same hardware. The navy and army can have cannons, I suppose. I should have read Dopey Joe's EO about guns but I used it as toilet paper.
Icy, what is wrong with you? Printer paper is rough as hell. Don't you love yourself? Look. I understand the need to find a bargain. But with toilet paper you buy the good toilet paper. I am broke AF but I always had good toilet paper. It's a line you don't cross. It tells you everything will be all right. The bills are late, but you've got good toilet paper. We have so many blessings we don't count. We have such good toilet paper. That Charmin Ultra...oh my God. You can make a suit out of that.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,536,658 times
Reputation: 6033
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie gein
We know we "have the right to bear arms"... but we have no clue about what the hell forming a "well regulated militia" means these days. If for no other reason, we have no idea who the founding fathers intended to "regulate" said militia.
ummm, Yes, we do.
Federalist Paper 29
Quote:
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.''
In George Washington's time (And Sir Francis Drake's, et. al.) warships were often privately-owned, even those armed with dozens of large cannon. They were even called "privateers". They were frequently the cutting edge of technology of their time.
This is all of it true. The Baltimore clipper type of topsail schooner was an example - very fast, sailed very close to the wind, and as such much cherished among smugglers, revenue collectors, and privateers. Modern-day examples are the Pride of Baltimore II and Californian.
Quote:
They were, for their time, full-fledged battleships.
Absolutely not, and I would expect the clip-vs-magazine crowd to be more careful with their terminology.
The term "battleship" wasn't used in the age of sail, but it has never meant anything but the"heaviest category of surface combatant". The age of sail equivalent would be a ship of the line - the line in question being the "line of battle" used in fleet actions. A ship of the line in the late 18th and 9th century would be two- or three-decker with anywhere from 64 to 100+ guns, 74 on two decks being typical.
No US privateer approached the sort of tonnage or armament found on a ship of the line, and any US privateer captain dumb enough to try and tackle one would be sunk. Or taken, as happened to he biggest US privateer, the Caesar of Boston of 26 guns - who struck to a British frigate in the West Indies.
I'm okay with citizens being only allowed to carry mukets or muzzle loaders. But then the police, government and military have to limit themselves to the same hardware. The navy and army can have cannons, I suppose.
I should have read Dopey Joe's EO about guns but I used it as toilet paper.
And nothing but a quill pen and parchment, maybe a crude block set printing press is all your allowed to exercise your 1st amendment rights.
Your "right" to healthcare?
Scalpels, bone saws, alcohol, snake oil linamints and ointments, leaches......no anesthesia or antibiotics.
This is all of it true. The Baltimore clipper type of topsail schooner was an example - very fast, sailed very close to the wind, and as such much cherished among smugglers, revenue collectors, and privateers. Modern-day examples are the Pride of Baltimore II and Californian.
Absolutely not, and I would expect the clip-vs-magazine crowd to be more careful with their terminology.
The term "battleship" wasn't used in the age of sail, but it has never meant anything but the"heaviest category of surface combatant". The age of sail equivalent would be a ship of the line - the line in question being the "line of battle" used in fleet actions. A ship of the line in the late 18th and 9th century would be two- or three-decker with anywhere from 64 to 100+ guns, 74 on two decks being typical.
No US privateer approached the sort of tonnage or armament found on a ship of the line, and any US privateer captain dumb enough to try and tackle one would be sunk. Or taken, as happened to he biggest US privateer, the Caesar of Boston of 26 guns - who struck to a British frigate in the West Indies.
Not sure how true that all is....
However, it's irrelevant because even if true that citizens didn't own ships that large, it wasn't because they were forbidden to.
It was because they were very expensive to build, man, deploy and maintain.
Feel free to look it up. Of course, there was a word for those who used their private warships without the appropriate government paperwork - that word was pirate. Pirates were hanged.
And if any of the US privateers had gotten it into their heads that government was tyrannical and they'd take the fight to the US Navy - even, as it were, in its infancy - they'd have been blown out of the water. Private warships only ever existed for the purpose of operating under government orders and control, and they'd have been suicidal to try and lock horns with (almost) any actual warship.
Feel free to look it up. Of course, there was a word for those who used their private warships without the appropriate government paperwork - that word was pirate. Pirates were hanged.
And if any of the US privateers had gotten it into their heads that government was tyrannical and they'd take the fight to the US Navy - even, as it were, in its infancy - they'd have been blown out of the water. Private warships only ever existed for the purpose of operating under government orders and control, and they'd have been suicidal to try and lock horns with (almost) any actual warship.
Again, irrelevant.
Any weapon can be used legally or illegally.
Pirates were criminals for the way the used those ships.
Im not sure soldiers would disobey those kinds of orders, have to remember, the 'citizens' they would be sent in to fight, would be labelled domestic terrorists, and thus a threat to security.
Look at how the police behave today as a great example...they will come out and arrest you and probably get the ATF involved if you happen to have a full automatic without the proper hoops jumped thru! (even though police are to protect our rights)...they have been convinced that we do not have all those rights. LOL
I could easily see police going door to door physically looking for firearms and citizens fully complying, even going out of their way to assist police.
I guess I have more faith in them then you do? I believe that the vast majority of both the military and law enforcement personnel are on our side and not our enemies. When push comes to shove they'll be right by our side.
I still can't see the military waging a war against it's own people regardless of what some low life politician(s) labels them as. I'm not against law enforcement either. Sure there are some bullies with a badge but I believe that most of them are not and are good people doing a thankless job. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. I don't look at them as jack booted thugs. They're not going to become goon squads going door to door searching every single home, apartment or dwelling throughout the entire United States. They just don't have the manpower. Not only that but they're not going out of their way to enforce in of all places New York's "Safe Act".
In a notoriously anti gun state, if it's any indication people are not complying with New York's "Safe Act" either. I can't possibly imagine people complying in state's such as Arizona where I live. I can't in my wildest dreams possibly imagine them trying to enforce these types of laws in Arizona. Especially now that we're officially designated as a 2nd Amendment sanctuary state. You're not going to find citizens turning on one another here that's for damn sure.
More and more state's are passing Constitutional Carry laws and declaring themselves as 2nd Amendment sanctuaries as well.
Quote:
NEW YORK STATE SAFE ACT - The Association of Retired Police ... https://associationofretiredpoliceof...tate-safe-act/
New York State Safe Act. Our NYS legislators and the Governor show how dysfunctional they could be when they enacted the New York State Safe Act of 2013 earlier this year. They enacted laws that directly affected both active and retired police officers and the weapons that they use and carry. Shortly after signing the law, they realized the mistakes that they had made and hastily made some revisions to the law.
New York State Police Advises Officers to Not Enforce SAFE ... https://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2014...agazine-limit/
Mar 28, 2014 · The New York State Police recently updated its SAFE Act field guide to instruct its members to not enforce a seven-round magazine limit that was part of the law. According to The Journal News, this...
NY SAFE Act releases field guide for troopers https://www.police1.com/gun-legislat...MjYYagVYttlXb/
Watertown Daily Times A field guide for troopers released last month by the New York State Police answers looming questions about the NY SAFE Act. The 20-page document sheds light, for instance, on how police should enforce the rule that reduces the number of bullets allowed in a magazine from 10 to seven in most cases.
Massive noncompliance with SAFE Act | Hudson Valley One https://hudsonvalleyone.com/2016/07/...with-safe-act/
Jul 07, 2016 · Opposition to the SAFE Act has been widespread across upstate New York, where 52 of the state’s 62 counties, including Ulster, have passed resolutions opposing the law. Upstate police agencies have also demonstrated a marked lack of enthusiasm for enforcing the ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.
It was an order to government. Saying "Since militias are necessary, you can't restrict or take away ANYBODY'S right to own ANY kind of arms."
That pretty much sums it up for those who's reading comprehension is not their forte.
And why are militia's necessary? To ward off tyranny from government. Which was what the Revolutionary War was all about. Yet people still don't get why we have the 2nd Amendment?
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.
