Posted on 05/27/2022 4:04:20 PM PDT by definitelynotaliberal
There was one woman behind the counter, who had the unenviable task of running background checks for every firearm purchased. In most cases that meant she had to disappoint customers and tell them it would be days or weeks before they will be able to collect their weapons. She had been ringing up and disappointing people, non-stop for weeks. As I neared the front of the line I heard her say to the room: “I don’t get it. Do they think they’re going to shoot a virus?”
“It’s not the virus they’re worried about,” I offered. “It’s their neighbours if the food runs out.”
(Excerpt) Read more at unherd.com ...
American liberals, as a rule, believe that our founders (fresh from a war they won with muzzle-loaded weapons) left us in a terrible mess with respect to modern guns.
A war they won with muzzle-loaded weapons, including cannon, against an adversary that fought back with muzzle-loaded weapons, including cannon ... and a lot more of them. And a lot more money to keep the supplies coming.
In 1776 muzzle-loaded weapons were "modern guns."
Damn! That was good.
“...I’m now fairly convinced that that is exactly what the founders gave us: an intentionally vague pronouncement designed to force the question into the future, to ensure it would be repeatedly reevaluated to keep up with changing weaponry and circumstances. “
I don’t think it was designed to “force the question into the future”. I think they wanted to guard against future tyranny (they had just come out of a war), but couldn’t bring themselves to write “A well regulated Militia being necessary to overthrow the government we just established if it becomes tyrannical, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
“But they didn’t tell us how much firepower citizens should be allowed to have. “
Yes they did. They said we could have militia weapons, like the ones the army has.
Shall not be infringed is definitely not vague.
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is pretty straightforward too. I see no ambiguity in that at all.
Ambiguous? Two nouns representing cohorts of the population, the Militia and the People. The rights of the People shall not be infringed. If you want to regulate the Militia, go ahead.
“Shall not be infringed is definitely not vague.”
Would a law prohibiting a five year old from keeping and bearing a firearm and prohibiting parents from providing the firearm, absent a need for self defense, be an infringement?
Well regulated militia
1. Well regulated - well trained in the small arms currently used by the military, or at least in modern firearms they own.
2. Militia - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Annie Oakley was shooting and hunting for her family at the age of 8. Trapping at the age of 6. Daniel Boone killed his first bear at the age of 12.
“Every thing of a controvertible nature,” James Madison noted regarding his proposed Bill of Rights, “was studiously avoided.”
Ok, so only men can have guns...just kidding.
Yep! They weren’t playing any “we’ll leave that to future generations” games.
They tried to nail things down as airtight as they could make it.
militia are adult males
“Annie Oakley was shooting and hunting for her family at the age of 8. Trapping at the age of 6. Daniel Boone killed his first bear at the age of 12.”
I wrote “five year old”. And none of that answers the question.
November 27, 2021
And a militia needs a command structure so it is subject to regulation. Militiamen can be ordered to fire, cease firing or to shoulder arms. The militia is subject to regulation. The people and their rights are not.
If the 1st amendment can now cover the internet and the 4th electronic and digital surveillance, the the second can darned sure cover a semi-auto rifle, no matter what the darned thing looks like!
I read that somewhere...
The thing is, “Militia” at the time meant, “Able-bodied [men] of fighting age”, capable of wielding a firearm. Or so I’ve been told.
This is the thing with language, as it changes over time, people don’t understand why the Amendments were worded in the way that they were, especially number Two. If you don’t know the definition of a word used almost two-hundred and fifty years ago, you can’t understand the point of the amendment.
So goes the ever-changing vocabulary thanks to wokeism, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.