|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 30, 2012, 08:21 PM | #51 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
|
Quote:
Nowhere does the 2nd say anything about 'firearms'... It clearly states "arms"... |
|
December 30, 2012, 08:22 PM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 24, 2010
Location: Central Louisiana
Posts: 3,137
|
Quote:
However, a current reading of history leads us to ask when the last time a true citizens militia formed to protect life and property? Anyone??? Bueller??? Hurricane Katrina. 2005. Citizens in New Orleans, LA and surrounding areas, faced with loss of power and unable to depend on assistance, formed citizens militias to protect property in neighborhoods. They pooled arms, set up patrol rosters, inventoried ammunition, maintained guards at entrances and roads and maintained those preparations until the civil authorities could resume critical civic functions. That is what the militia is for, and it's the latest example I know of, where the local population came together as a militia to protect property and lives. It's a classic example of the 2nd Amendment in action, and this happened just a little over seven years ago. |
|
December 30, 2012, 08:28 PM | #53 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
The point I made in my first post is also crystal clear from a historical, literal, grammatical, common sense perspective. The COTUS is an agreement between the people and the government that exists at their consent by their creation. The people are to be free from National government interference except for the matters explicitly spelled out in the COTUS. All other regulation is from the various states ONLY. It's unmistakable. The National government has only specific powers. One power that is SPECIFICALLY denied them is to disarm the people. It is not only NOT an enumerated power, it is not even left open to interpretation. It is specifically denied them. Specifically denied. Not just vaguely "...not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,...", which should be enough on it's own merit, it is further specifically DENIED to the National government by being codified in the 2A. I don't know how it could be any more clear. If you were baby sitting my children and I left a note that said "Being that the cookies are purchased for my children, the babysitter may not take them home." Would you be like, "Well, I know that SOME of those cookies weren't actually bought for the children. The neighbor brought them over for Christmas. I guess THOSE cookies I, the babysitter, can take home." Of course you wouldn't say that. They're MY cookies. Just because I gave you ONE reason why I have them, would you demand that it was the ONLY reason? If I decided to give some to friends, would you be like "Hey! You said those were for your children and I couldn't have them!" They're MY cookies. You have no say! The cookies being used for the nourishment of the children; the babysitter shall not take them home. 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. No interpretation. Common sense use of grammar and the unwritten implications that we all use every day. It only gets dicey when we don't like the obvious meaning and WANT to go looking for something we DO like.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
December 30, 2012, 08:31 PM | #54 |
Member
Join Date: December 19, 2012
Posts: 43
|
|
December 30, 2012, 08:32 PM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 12,463
|
I don't believe that they had the internet in mind either but I don't believe they would have placed restrictions on speech because of it.
I feel exactly the same way regarding firearms.
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson |
December 30, 2012, 08:38 PM | #56 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Quote:
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
December 30, 2012, 08:46 PM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 3, 2000
Location: Trinidad, Co. , USA
Posts: 225
|
Was the Kentucky long rifle not the best rifle on the battlefield? Our AR's are not the best rifle on the battlefield today, they have regulated the 2nd Amendment to keep them away form us.
__________________
My X representive Fran Coleman told me that if I don't like the laws of Denver I could move, So I Did! |
December 30, 2012, 08:51 PM | #58 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
|
This article from Red State web site covers the topic well enough. The quote is from the comment section below the article:
"To a person in the 18th century,"regulate" meant "to bring order, method, or uniformity to" - see definition 2 in Webster's: http://www.merriam-webster.com.... It's the same meaning used in phrases like "regular infantry", and has everything to do with training, discipline, and practice. In fact, if our founding fathers were writing the 2nd amendment today, they might very well have written "well-trained". It's the difference between having a mob running around barely knowing which end of a gun is the dangerous one, and a group knowing how to aim and shoot accurately, care for their weapons, and coordinate together with others. Every time you see the word "regulated" in the writings of our founding fathers about guns, try substituting the word "trained", and I believe a lot of their writings make a whole lot more sense. For example, the connection between a "well-regulated" militia and the security of a free state makes a lot more sense if you understand "well-regulated" to mean "well-trained"." http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/26/g...-part-i-of-ii/ |
December 30, 2012, 09:27 PM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
|
They mentioned arms because guns weren't the only weapons. Partisan's and pikes may have still been seen on the battlefield. The sabre was widespread especially among cavalry which brings me to the point of mass killing.
A cavalry man had a horse which could carry a little more than the average foot soldier. They could be armed with at least two pistols and than a sabre. Usually cavalry were used at that time when an enemy force was either fleeing or wavering on the point of breaking. So a cavalry man would be able to discharge at least two pistols and than bring out the sabre. Other cavalry still used the lance followed up by a sabre. I am sure some of the kill numbers a few of these cavalrymen racked up running down a beaten foe would definitely qualify as a mass killing. load outs varied over the eons. I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't times you would have found one armed with a blunderbuss backed up by four pistols. My history is probably not precise but the point is that mass killings were nothing new at the time the 2nd amendment was written. That the technology of the time certianly enabled a person to kill a lot of unarmed people. |
December 30, 2012, 09:28 PM | #60 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Quote:
|
|
December 30, 2012, 09:31 PM | #61 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,287
|
Well said,Peetza man!
Actually,prior to the GCA 68,we had the Service Armament catalogue,and for more vintage stuff,Bannermans. I,general public,had I been older at the time,could have bought a 20mm semi-auto Lahti,a 55 Boyes,a 60 mm mortar,stens,grease guns,even a tank or armored car.They may have even had 37 mm anti-tank rifles,etc in there. We could buy them.I recall 20 mm ammo was $1.25 a round. And,we had no problem.No crimes I ever heard of. Shooting sports were mainstream,we had B+W TV with Bonanza,Red Skelton,I Love Lucy, Paladin,Combat!no video games...comic books,Jeb Stuart,Sgt Rock.. I do not advocate restricting the First Ammendment,but,maybe,just maybe,for some people who have issues,mind altering substances whether prescribed,(some common factors in the mass shootings are prescribed)or just to "escape reality" People can go over the edge and blur the lines between reality and a movie or video game...not all people,but some. We have had several years of crap economy,high unemployment,high stress ,hopeless times that drive people over the edge. What is the news?The financial cliff?Mayan calender? Regardless of political party,one of the responsibilties of government (defined by the Constitution) is a budget.Simple,yes? The chaos?People can deal with winter because they trust in spring.What can we trust in?A talking head?The words of any politician? Our currency suggests God. The root cause of incidents of violence is not the instrument of violence. Changing a fanbelt will not fix a flat tire. We have a corrupt and incompetent government looking for scapegoat issues. How would our founding fathers deal with the fact we are producing "human beings" that can kill classmates,or little children,or teachers,or mother? BTW,I have held a wonderful,beautiful woman in my arms who was beaten to death with a fireplace poker by her own tweaker son. Weren't they always using fireplace pokers as murder instruments on Perry Mason?We need a law!! Or is that an incredibly stupid idea? Giving up individual liberty will not help.It is exactly the wrong thing to do. |
December 30, 2012, 09:36 PM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 18, 2008
Posts: 100
|
The founding fathers were pretty clear in their writings what they intended. They meant for the people to have what they needed to ensure they could preserve their rights and liberties from any threat, be it foreign or domestic.
|
December 30, 2012, 09:41 PM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 21, 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 2,378
|
Brian, it's not what I want, I'm not looking for anything other then where the risk is relative to the second amendment. If its so clear cut then I guess there is nothing to be concerned about? So why all the threads? ALL laws arebsubject to interpretation, that's why we have a Supreme Court, to adjudicate rulings of lower courts because laws and rulings are subject to interpretation, not just mine but judges and justices.
|
December 30, 2012, 09:41 PM | #64 | |
Member
Join Date: December 19, 2012
Posts: 43
|
Quote:
The exception is right in it. The SPLC has a list of thousands of groups. sent from the rust monster |
|
December 30, 2012, 09:41 PM | #65 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Quote:
|
|
December 30, 2012, 09:54 PM | #66 | |
Member
Join Date: December 19, 2012
Posts: 43
|
Quote:
Later, but still a non firearms related mass killing. Unless you count the rifle he blew up his truck with. sent from the rust monster |
|
December 30, 2012, 10:16 PM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,287
|
This will take you to R J Rummel's "Death by Government"
It will tell you why the second ammendment is important.It is a scholarly study of what unarmed people suffer at the hands of their own governments. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM |
December 30, 2012, 10:48 PM | #68 |
Junior member
Join Date: February 2, 2008
Posts: 3,150
|
Government is a like a huge, hungry rabid pit bull. The Bill of Rights is the heavy chain that keeps him from eating you alive. Anytime the Govt. demands that you take that chain off or even just loosen it a little really bad things WILL happen. We really need that chain and it needs to be very strong. We must not believe ANY of the "necessary" reasons they claim to loosen it. As for "now one person can kill 30 people before anyone can get close to to him", that is not very likely if people are permitted to CCW anywhere (and are intelligent enough to do so). But that is what they want us to believe.
Last edited by drail; December 30, 2012 at 10:58 PM. |
December 30, 2012, 11:00 PM | #69 |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
One fella who tried to debate me against "assault rifles" told me he felt these rifles were not what was meant in the writing of the 2nd...
I told him that "State of the art" weapons were to be included in the right that shall not be infringed.... He looked at me stupid and said that these rifles were not around back then... I told him that "state of the art" weapons won the war that defeated the British and it was state of the art weapons they intended to be in the hands of citizens for all uses including the ability to defeat a tyrannical government... The Framers of the nation would never expect us to use muzzle loaders against a government armed with machine guns and tanks... Brent |
December 30, 2012, 11:04 PM | #70 |
Junior member
Join Date: February 2, 2008
Posts: 3,150
|
I think they would expect us to use whatever means are possible.
|
December 30, 2012, 11:54 PM | #71 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
In the USSC case U.S. v Miller, the government never contested that Miller was a member of the irregular militia, the case hinged on whether his shotgun was a military weapon. If anyone had shown up to defend the case and present evidence that short-barreled shotguns were used in battle, Miller would have prevailed and perhaps the entire NFA 1934 would have been overturned.
The Miller decision still establishes that military weapons (so called "assault weapons" and 30-round magazines) are the most constitutionally protected. I'm not sure the current Supreme Court is honest enough to rule that way. On the bright side, they tend to hold their previous decisions in VERY high regard (perhaps higher than the Constitution itself)
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
December 31, 2012, 12:18 AM | #72 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2011
Posts: 801
|
The average American voter will not listen to folks talking about needing to defend against a tyrannical U.S. government. To them, who's that, are we talking about those dear troops we support, that we all stand and clap for when they enter the airport?
These arguments seem to hit home with us, but will probably come off as kooky to the average Joe and Flo voter. I say we tailor our arguments for other than "us". Last edited by Carry_24/7; December 31, 2012 at 12:23 AM. |
December 31, 2012, 04:47 AM | #73 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,607
|
This was clearly addressed by the Supreme Court in DC v. Heller, page 8:
Quote:
|
|
December 31, 2012, 06:16 AM | #74 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,238
|
So if I understand the opposition's interpretation of the bill of rights, then soldiers can be quartered in a condo or privately owned apartments. Lol
The constitution, as I see it, has three distinct and separate entities; the United States, the States and the People. So, to borrow from peetza, .....the right of the people to store and eat cookies, shall not be infringed. There's no vagueness to it, the brevity of the 2a gives the government no wiggle room. It was not intended to be vague. There's really not much to argue about. I'm a dummy and I can figure it out.
__________________
Woohoo, I’m back In Texas!!! |
December 31, 2012, 06:54 AM | #75 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
You know, after some reflection, discussions like this tend to be meaningless, much like the arguments over clips, a term which some manufacturers use with little regard for what we might think it means. What difference does it make what the original meaning of the 2nd amendment was, or what the militia was. I for one do not care to be bound by what they decided well over 200 years ago no more than I wish to be bound by things written 3,000 years ago, even though such things were thought to be very, very important. Sacrificied any animals lately?
Never has the militia been called out to overthrow a tyrannical government and I'm not sure one ever has been anywhere. After all, the only thing that will happen is that one government will be replaced by another, perhaps by two others, maybe even more. I cannot imagine that a government that comes to power by force of arms, by revolution, will be any better than the previous one. What the militia was used for was to put down rebellion, which it did fairly well, fight the Indians and repell invasion, the latter two which it did poorly. It'd be nice if it could be rewritten but that'll never happen in my lifetime although that's not saying much.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
|
|