In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS: What kind of gun?
Paleobrute
Member Posts: 183 ✭✭✭
I'd like to hear arguments for exactly what sort of gun (not to the degree of brands, though...only something like ".22 rimfire single shot rifles, .30 Centerfire SemiAuto rifles, double-barreled shotguns of 12G or smaller, .22 revolvers only, etc.") you believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to possess as a citizen.
Comments
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I would include any arms that have been, or could be reasonably employed to preserve freedom. With that broad interpretation, it would absolutely include any arms currently, or previously used by the military. It would also include any other arms that could be employed by any able person to accomplish the same goals. That would include grandpa's .22 cal, a 20mm anti-tank gun, and anything else that could be employed against an enemy.
As I interpret it:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I would include any arms that have been, or could be reasonably employed to preserve freedom. With that broad interpretation, it would absolutely include any arms currently, or previously used by the military. It would also include any other arms that could be employed by any able person to accomplish the same goals. That would include grandpa's .22 cal, a 20mm anti-tank gun, and anything else that could be employed against an enemy.
Amen dcinffxva! [8D]
Anyone who understands the Second Amendment will tell you that there are no restrictions on the type of firearm they may possess...we all know you believe otherwise...which is exactly why you do not fit in here. You are welcome to leave.
I'm refraining from telling you what you're welcome to do because I'm afraid you might enjoy it.
You say there's no "restrictions" in the 2nd A. on the type of firearm. I say there's no declaration on the type of firearm. Lack of restrictions doesn't necessarily mean 'anything and everything goes'.
In other words, the 2nd A. does not 'guarantee' that we should be allowed to own any and all types of arms including types that the men who wrote the document could probably never have even imagined. You can read into the omissions all you like...but that's not a good legal basis on which to stand.
Your false accusations aside, that doesn't mean I believe we should restricted to only flint lock muskets as was the premium weapon of the day in 1789. I ask for LOGIC and ARGUMENTS on the subject. I didn't expect you'd have any of that to contribute and you've not disappointed me in my expectations.
As I interpret it:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I would include any arms that have been, or could be reasonably employed to preserve freedom. With that broad interpretation, it would absolutely include any arms currently, or previously used by the military. It would also include any other arms that could be employed by any able person to accomplish the same goals. That would include grandpa's .22 cal, a 20mm anti-tank gun, and anything else that could be employed against an enemy.
Do you believe that a 20mm anti-tank gun or a 30mm chain gun should be allowed to be owned by any citizen and stored at his home? Or should it be kept down at the "militia armory"?
quote:Originally posted by ECC
Anyone who understands the Second Amendment will tell you that there are no restrictions on the type of firearm they may possess...we all know you believe otherwise...which is exactly why you do not fit in here. You are welcome to leave.
I'm refraining from telling you what you're welcome to do because I'm afraid you might enjoy it.
You say there's no "restrictions" in the 2nd A. on the type of firearm. I say there's no declaration on the type of firearm. Lack of restrictions doesn't necessarily mean 'anything and everything goes'.
In other words, the 2nd A. does not 'guarantee' that we should be allowed to own any and all types of arms including types that the men who wrote the document could probably never have even imagined. You can read into the omissions all you like...but that's not a good legal basis on which to stand.
Your false accusations aside, that doesn't mean I believe we should restricted to only flint lock muskets as was the premium weapon of the day in 1789. I ask for LOGIC and ARGUMENTS on the subject. I didn't expect you'd have any of that to contribute and you've not disappointed me in my expectations.
You've gained no respect here...quite to the contrary...see you elsewhere...preferably on the battlefield.
You've gained no respect here...quite to the contrary...see you elsewhere...preferably on the battlefield.
LOL You're not scaring me pops. Now...you've hijacked this thread enough. I didn't start it to make any reference to you in any form. I asked for a legitimate discussion about a topic that I genuinely care about. But that's alright: you go right on dreaming about how you'd like to swoooooop down on me like The Charge of the Light Brigade but I'm betting you're no Errol Flynn.
quote:Originally posted by ECC
You've gained no respect here...quite to the contrary...see you elsewhere...preferably on the battlefield.
LOL You're not scaring me pops.
I'm glad to know that...
quote:Originally posted by dcinffxva
As I interpret it:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I would include any arms that have been, or could be reasonably employed to preserve freedom. With that broad interpretation, it would absolutely include any arms currently, or previously used by the military. It would also include any other arms that could be employed by any able person to accomplish the same goals. That would include grandpa's .22 cal, a 20mm anti-tank gun, and anything else that could be employed against an enemy.
Do you believe that a 20mm anti-tank gun or a 30mm chain gun should be allowed to be owned by any citizen and stored at his home? Or should it be kept down at the "militia armory"?
If it became necessary to use arms to defend against enemies, foreign, or domestic, it would hardly be practical to have everyone have to go to an armory to obtain them. If that were the case, those areas would be the first targeted.
In WWII, when there were discussions to attack mainland America by the Japanese, Admiral Yamamoto was reported to have said "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
Our enemies now clearly do not have the same respect/fear, and that is in large part as a result of our politicians.
The men who drafted our Constitution were men of vision. They were certainly not naive enough to believe that the flintlock musket would be the pinnacle of weaponry. Even if it were, there were flintlock "machine-guns". See any similarities here ?
quote:Originally posted by ECC
You've gained no respect here...quite to the contrary...see you elsewhere...preferably on the battlefield.
LOL You're not scaring me pops. Now...you've hijacked this thread enough. I didn't start it to make any reference to you in any form. I asked for a legitimate discussion about a topic that I genuinely care about. But that's alright: you go right on dreaming about how you'd like to swoooooop down on me like The Charge of the Light Brigade but I'm betting you're no Errol Flynn.
While you continue editing your posts, why don't we wait and see...
While you continue editing your posts, why don't we wait and see...
Wait and see what -? If you're going to charge me like Errol Flynn? Pops, I think you're on some serious meds.
If it became necessary to use arms to defend against enemies, foreign, or domestic, it would hardly be practical to have everyone have to go to an armory to obtain them. If that were the case, those areas would be the first targeted.
So you're basically envisioning a RED DAWN sort of scenario where there's no warning that the bad guys are coming and so everyone needs to be armed "just like the Army" in his own home -? Do I understand you correctly?
i.e. they call an ar15 or an AK an assault rifle it may be one but back when the 2nd amendment was wrote a flint lock was an assault rifle also,
so if a flint lock was a legal to own gun back then an AR should also be legal to own now as it has just been updated a few hundred years
quote:Originally posted by dcinffxva
If it became necessary to use arms to defend against enemies, foreign, or domestic, it would hardly be practical to have everyone have to go to an armory to obtain them. If that were the case, those areas would be the first targeted.
So you're basically envisioning a RED DAWN sort of scenario where there's no warning that the bad guys are coming and so everyone needs to be armed "just like the Army" in his own home -? Do I understand you correctly?
Your original question was what sort of gun do I believe the Second Amendment guarantees my right to possess.
I never said anything about a Red Dawn scenario, but since you mentioned it, how much warning was there when the first bombs fell on Pearl Harbor, or when planes hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon ? How badly was traffic disrupted on September 11th ? I can tell you from first hand experience, that it was nearly impossible to move about. All of the major highways were shut down.
As far as everyone being armed like the Army, it seems to have worked fairly well for the Swiss. Besides, if using the conservative estimate of 80,000,000 gun owners in the US, if only 1 out of 100 owned a fully automatic firearm, and 1 out of 1000 owned a 20mm/30mm or similar, that would be 800,000 machine guns, and 80,000 anti-materiel guns. Those numbers alone would make it very costly for anyone who did try to threaten our security.
Would you believe that an assault on our way of life would be limited to military targets only ? I think this has already been answered when our aircraft were turned into missiles, and used against us.
Who then bears the responsibility of protecting our country. The Government ? Is it reasonable to believe that we could all sit back, grilling burgers while our homes are under attack, and the Army alone would do the fighting ? That notion defies the very premise that this nation was formed under, that "We The People" ARE the United States, as as such not only have a right, but an obligation to defend it when it becomes necessary.
I never said anything about a Red Dawn scenario, but since you mentioned it, how much warning was there when the first bombs fell on Pearl Harbor, or when planes hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon ? How badly was traffic disrupted on September 11th ? I can tell you from first hand experience, that it was nearly impossible to move about. All of the major highways were shut down.
As far as everyone being armed like the Army, it seems to have worked fairly well for the Swiss. Besides, if using the conservative estimate of 80,000,000 gun owners in the US, if only 1 out of 100 owned a fully automatic firearm, and 1 out of 1000 owned a 20mm/30mm or similar, that would be 800,000 machine guns, and 80,000 anti-materiel guns. Those numbers alone would make it very costly for anyone who did try to threaten our security.
Would you believe that an assault on our way of life would be limited to military targets only ? I think this has already been answered when our aircraft were turned into missiles, and used against us.
Who then bears the responsibility of protecting our country. The Government ? Is it reasonable to believe that we could all sit back, grilling burgers while our homes are under attack, and the Army alone would do the fighting ? That notion defies the very premise that this nation was formed under, that "We The People" ARE the United States, as as such not only have a right, but an obligation to defend it when it becomes necessary."
This is VERY well written and reflects my sentiments.
The only thing I would add is the obligation of the Citizen for preemptive attack on those who threaten our Constitution - ie JFK.
Doug
Your original question was what sort of gun do I believe the Second Amendment guarantees my right to possess.
I never said anything about a Red Dawn scenario, but since you mentioned it, how much warning was there when the first bombs fell on Pearl Harbor, or when planes hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon ? How badly was traffic disrupted on September 11th ? I can tell you from first hand experience, that it was nearly impossible to move about. All of the major highways were shut down.
None of those constituted a "RED DAWN" scenario (as in the movie). So what kind of weapons are you claiming would have prevented Pearl Harbor and the WTC/911 attacks if citizens had been armed with them -??? My point is that at Pearl Harbor, there was a large military force amply armed and trained in the use of the armament. I hardly think the private citizens on the island were going to be any more alerted than the U.S. Navy was (or wasn't). Pearl Harbor didn't happen because of a lack of weaponry and people trained to use them. And really: I don't think the modern radar and other tracking systems would allow that sort of sneak attack with no warning again.
C'mon now: I'm not going to ask you to 'fight fair' but I will suggest you use some logic.
quote:Originally posted by dcinffxva
As far as everyone being armed like the Army, it seems to have worked fairly well for the Swiss.
The Swiss citizen isn't armed with anything more than his battle rifle. AND there are lot more rules and restrictions that go into that keeping of his battle rifle at home than just handing him one over the counter and saying "Go stick this in your broom closet, Fritz; we'll call you if we need you." In your original response, you advocated the private citizen being as fully armed and with every type of weaponry as the army. That's not the case with the Swiss so to offer that up as supporting documentation isn't accurate.
quote:Originally posted by dcinffxva
Would you believe that an assault on our way of life would be limited to military targets only ? I think this has already been answered when our aircraft were turned into missiles, and used against us.
So what are you saying -? If you'd been in Manhattan that morning with your Stinger you'd have shot down those planes -? Because that's about the only way you could have stopped those attacks (and of course then the planes would have just dropped somewhere else).
In a previous post you said: "If it became necessary to use arms to defend against enemies, foreign, or domestic, it would hardly be practical to have everyone have to go to an armory to obtain them."
Why? Why would that be impractical? Because that's what the situation is right now in this country in the case of our Armed Forces. Servicemembers -even those who live on base- don't even take their rifles home with them, much less all the heavy stuff. You get alerted, you go to the arms room and draw your weapon. Really now: you want your neighbors across the street to have a .50 BMG and M203 Grenade Launcher with live rounds? With THEIR kids living in the house?
Yeah, that was a little bit sarcastic but think about it: with all that extra heavy stuff, how many homes are going to be burglarized by bad guys wanting a machine gun? The situation halfway works in Switzerland because they have a much smaller population and let's face it: much better demographics taken as a whole.
But Switzerland ALSO has a National Identity Card. And socialized medical care. And a lot of other things that most of us don't want. Switzerland is also very stringent on not letting people treated for mental problems -to often include simply being prescribed drugs for depression, etc.- have access to guns.
My point is that when we put Switzerland up on a pedestal from a SINGLE ISSUE viewpoint while ignoring all the rest of the stuff we don't like, that's not really a valid argument. That's like when Chad the Liberal smugly tells me "Well the great civilization of the Ancient Greeks embraced homosexuality." as if that's all the reason I should need to be for gay marriages and all that stuff, too. However, when I remind them that "the great civilization of the Ancient Greeks" ALSO "embraced" WARFARE and SLAVERY...the little TILT sign pops up in their eyes. In other words if you're going to point out another culture/civilization or nation as a model for whatever you're pushing, you have to consider the BIG PICTURE. A lot of things work in one place or another because they're parts of the whole.
Here are some of the rules the Swiss citizen who's a militia member and keeps his rifle and pistol at home is subject to:
Each such individual keeps his army-issued personal weapon (the Sig 550 5.56x45 mm assault rifle for enlisted personnel, the SIG 510 battle rifle and/or the SIG-Sauer P220 9 mm semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), which is sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use takes place.
When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. In this case of retention, the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed; the rifle is then returned to the discharged owner. The rifle is then a semi-automatic rifle.
To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (weapon carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security. In other words, OTHER than carrying his service-issued weapons to and from shooting practice or other military drill sessions or for hunting, it's uncommon for Swiss citizens to have a gun outside their homes.
Another factoid: approximately 300 deaths per year involve the use of Swiss army guns, mostly suicides and family murders.
Is it practical to assume that the US Government will keep 80,000,000 (just taking the number of households that some sources claim to have firearms) rifles, and ammunition for each in storage waiting for the day that they may be required ? That when that day comes, those 80,000,000 people will all hop in their Chevy, cruise on down to the armory and pick it up ?
We are digressing with the scenarios, and although I had originally written a fairly extensive answer, opted to delete it because it drifted away from the original question.
On that note, I will turn the question around a bit, and ask you, which types of guns do you believe the Second Amendment would NOT allow me to possess ? Who do you believe the intended beneficiary of this Amendment is, the Militia as it was known in the 1780's, or the people ? I would argue that they are one and the same. I would also suggest that research on the men who were involved in the formation of the United States clearly intended that this right be extended to individual persons, and not as a collective.
Thanks [8D]
on to your question:
quote:
which types of guns do you believe the Second Amendment would NOT allow me to possess ?
don't you read the papers? it's all about hunting now, all guns you need and should be allowed to posses are hunting guns.
does that look anything like an M16 to you?
I don't doubt that a bit, at least initially. That's why I used the numbers of 1/100, and 1/1000 when I was talking about the full-autos, and the anti-tank type arms.
Hopefully, if it ever gets to that point, more and more of those that own firearms now would reach their limit, and join in. Despite what most of us think about or fellow Americans, in times of crisis they will generally band together.
As far as the "hunting" weapons, I personally would be much more afraid of an experienced hunter with a high-powered scoped rifle than I would be of a wanna be gangster with a Tec-9.
I doubt the reason the Swiss have been relatively secure is because they have an excellent health care system.
Not what I said. What I said -again- is that you're basically talking about a SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT in the case of the Swiss. Many things work in a SOCIALIST SOCIETY that -but its very nature- keeps close tabs on the citizenry, that wouldn't work in ours.
Since you're obviously touting the Swiss system, then is it accurate to assume you also relish the idea of the routine mandatory checks on ammunition stored with the militiaman's rifle? We all know that setting up a system to keep up with that would create yet another layer of bureaucracy with all of the problems and expense we already suffer through. Plus, there's a whole lot fewer Swiss in a geographically much smaller country.
Once again, if you're going to tout a system, tout the ENTIRE system. Otherwise, you can't say that only a little piecemeal bit would work.
quote:Originally posted by dcinffxva
Is it practical to assume that the US Government will keep 80,000,000 (just taking the number of households that some sources claim to have firearms) rifles, and ammunition for each in storage waiting for the day that they may be required ? That when that day comes, those 80,000,000 people will all hop in their Chevy, cruise on down to the armory and pick it up ?
Is is practical to assume that 80M people are going to be able to effectively use those 80M rifles and then (if successful) peacefully turn them back in and not have a thousand little "civil wars" raging?
quote:Originally posted by dcinffxva
On that note, I will turn the question around a bit, and ask you, which types of guns do you believe the Second Amendment would NOT allow me to possess ? Who do you believe the intended beneficiary of this Amendment is, the Militia as it was known in the 1780's, or the people ? I would argue that they are one and the same. I would also suggest that research on the men who were involved in the formation of the United States clearly intended that this right be extended to individual persons, and not as a collective.
At this point I'm unsure. I was honestly hoping to hear some rational, logical arguments but at this point I can understand why 'the other side' thinks most gun owners are wack jobs. And no, I'm not directing that at you personally.
As for the Militia in the late 18th century, I hate to use this argument since it's a favorite of the gun-grabbers but it's true: the demographics of this nation are different. Back then I'd bet that probably 90% of American males from the age of 8 and older were at least somewhat proficient with firearms. We just got done fighting a war. And probably more than 75% of homes had a firearm. Today...
Another thing is the whole "militia" routine. Back then, a lot of guys went and did some form of military drill. The weapons were much simpler and thus easier to train in the basic usage of than say, an M16. And -like it or not- a modern high capacity firearm IS capable of killing more people more quickly. My point is that we so often sling around "Every able bodied man over the age of 16 is a member of the Militia of his state" or whatever...but how many people would go to any sort of militia drill to maintain a certain level of proficiency? Hell, it's hard enough to get people to go to their jury duty.
The bottom line is that regardless of how certain everyone here is that the 2nd Amendment means he oughta be able to own whatever gun his pocketbook can afford and his imagination can dream up, the fact is that argument is losing ground.
So what do I consider to be "reasonable"? Guns that will protect me and my family from a reasonable, plausible threat. I don't expect a Japanese Zero to strafe my house so I don't need a 37mm Anti-Aircraft Bofors on my front porch. If ECC and Dougie try to drive a U-Haul filled with fertilizer (assuming those two yukaloons figure out it's got to be the explosive type, to wit, 800 lbs of cow manure isn't gonna do the job) and ram my house, I could take care of that nuisance with any of my few dozen guns...and I wouldn't need a belt fed .50 BMG with a 100 round can to do it.
Now for the standard disclaimer: I'm not against Title II and III weapons owners. I DO think those should be regulated, though. I'm not against 'black guns'. I own a few. I don't like National Firearms registration. I don't want the 17 year old methhead down the road to be able to legally buy a gun. If he's going to get one, regardless of how 'easy' it's supposed to be, I'd rather he tried to steal one so maybe someone at least will have a chance to cap him during his attempt. I could go on but the point is that just because I don't think it should look like MAD MAX BEYOND THUNDERDOME doesn't mean I think we should only be allowed to own ONE gun and that a .22 single shot bolt action rifle.
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. -- George Washington
A free people ought...to be armed. -- George Washington, speech of Jan. 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, Jan. 14, 1790.
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. -- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
``No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements).''
- Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353
``To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...''
- Richard Henry Lee, 1787
``I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.''
``To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.''
- George Mason
I'm not touting the Swiss system. Aside from tasty choclates, and nice watches, they have nothing I can't live without.
Do I believe that even a majority of US gun owners would take up arms to defend their homes ? No, not likely, at least initially, however in the last throes of the Third Reich, and the Japanese empire, young boys, old men and schoolgirls were being trained to battle the invading troops. If the US gets pushed to that point to employ everyone able, then who knows. We are again speculating at this point.
You state that firearms today are much more complicated than the musketry of the 1770 vintage. I would disagree there. You had a bullet mold, you poured your bullets, measured your charge, poured the charge in the barrel, seated the bullet, sometimes with a cloth or paper patch, primed the pan, cocked and fired. Granted the bullets were generally not cast at the time of need, but in advance, and the powder was also later contained in paper cartridges as well.
Were the citizens of the 1770's more familiar and skilled with firearms than the citizens of today ? Likely, yes, as often skill with a firearm was an essential part of survival.
Years ago I felt much the way you do about the NFA regulated weapons. My thoughts on them have shifted significantly since. Is it likely that a Zero will strafe your house ? Probably not, but what if the threat is not a foreign invader, but a domestic one ?
I would go on, but work is calling, and I have to cut this a little short.
The founding fathers were well aware that, in time, should our nation survive long enough, many things would happen which in the late 18th century they couldn't imagine. In their writings they spoke often of both the limitless possibilities for the United States, and the limitless threats to her existence that might well arise. Throughout, and over a significant length of time (thus ruling out the possibility that, say, Jefferson's attitude toward an armed citizenry was merely the whim of an isolated moment in his life), they individually and collectively reiterated the imperative that the citizens, the people, the common folk, every last person who wished to be armed, should be. They equally emphasized that the ultimate purpose of armed citizens was to resist all enemies, domestic and foriegn -- with an emphasis, arising from their firsthand experience with England, on the domestic.
In short, they had gone through and succeeded in an armed rebellion against what had originally been their lawful government, but which had violated their rights to a point beyond bearing, and they foresaw that there might well be a need for Americans to do so again. It was, they believed, necessary for us to be armed in a manner sufficient to give us the means to resist, if necessary defeat, the forces of our own government. In that context, I believe that any and all weapons of a military nature, should I have the means and desire to acquire such, should be legally available to me.
A responsible gun owner is no more dangerous with a machine gun, or anti-tank weapon, or an F-18 fighter plane fully armed, than is any trained soldier, sailor, or pilot of our national armed forces. On the other hand, said gun/weapon owner is no LESS dangerous, and that is precisely what the founding fathers intended.
To declare that the wisdom of the founding fathers lacked a sufficient degree of foresight to be applicable today, and that we ought to heed instead our present-day crop of leaders who tell us that Franklin was wrong, that we can and should accept restrictions on our freedom to help protect our security, pretty much ends the discussion as far as I'm concerned. I'll still discuss (which really upsets some of the hardcores on this site who seem to regard the willingness and ability to talk as compromise), but the person arguing with me is stating that he prefers the outlook and judgement of men and women who consider our heritage to be a dangerous precedent that needs restraining. I prefer the wisdom of the men and women who institutionalized and provided legal guarantees for our freedom -- not "giving" us freedom or rights, but simply assuring us we'd always have the means of keeping them.
I often don't like the tone taken by some of the more hardcore posters on this site, but in the end, bottom line, I agree and stand with them. 100%.
Edited for basic grammar, not content.
When that was written with a chicken feather, "the people" had the finest most up-to-date arms in the world. Likewise it needs to be today.
Not to hard to figure out.
quote:Originally posted by dcinffxva
As I interpret it:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I would include any arms that have been, or could be reasonably employed to preserve freedom. With that broad interpretation, it would absolutely include any arms currently, or previously used by the military. It would also include any other arms that could be employed by any able person to accomplish the same goals. That would include grandpa's .22 cal, a 20mm anti-tank gun, and anything else that could be employed against an enemy.
Do you believe that a 20mm anti-tank gun or a 30mm chain gun should be allowed to be owned by any citizen and stored at his home? Or should it be kept down at the "militia armory"?
...My trunk[}:)]
Don
The guys here have given their opinions on the Second Amendment, which obviously I agree with. So what yours Paleo? What arms exactly do you believe that the Second guarantees the people the right to keep and bare?
That is, not hunting rifles or purely target guns, except to the extent used in training.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Since the initial subordinate clause restricts the latter, the question is 'what is the nature of the restriction?'
thus, M14s, Garands, 1903s, M16s, M4s, etc. Full auto. Military weapons ONLY.
I believe that our Founding Fathers were sufficiently forward-thinking, and did the same with the Second Amendment.
I believe that they wanted to reserve to the Citizens the blessings of technological advances, and did not want to limit progress in arms available. I am sure the "Arms" they contemplated were "Man-Portable", as their concept of a "Soldier" was basically an Infantryman, walking. I know that the oldest gun I have held, a Civil War Musket of .69 bore, was more than I would like to have to march fifty miles a day with, and I was no weakling in my prime!
So, without a tiresome discussion of sighting systems, Automation of reloading, wire-guided systems, etc., I would just say that whatever "Arms" the Founding Fathers intended, they need to be portable by one man, afoot. Lotsa room there for some really fine weapons!
Edited for typos & clarity
Any weapon which would be used in the military.
That is, not hunting rifles or purely target guns, except to the extent used in training.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Since the initial subordinate clause restricts the latter, the question is 'what is the nature of the restriction?'
thus, M14s, Garands, 1903s, M16s, M4s, etc. Full auto. Military weapons ONLY.
``I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.''
``To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.''
- George Mason
If you can afford one(if they were legal) you probally have enough money to do what you want and own enough land to be able to take it out and have a little fun.[8D]
Own what ever you like and can afford. If you mistreat it then take the punishment..