Posted on 07/16/2004 8:59:00 AM PDT by neverdem
I'm not sure where the Constitution specifies "small arms". Was private ownership of cannons permitted by the founders?
It doesn't make such distinctions. It says "Arms." And the focus is not on "what individuals may own", but rather, what this newly formed general government "cannot do." It is not a "granting of rights", but a "restriction of authority on the United States Government" from infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Of course, the federlists (?) thought a BOR was absurd, since the Constitution did not grant any powers to the USG to infringe the right(s) of the people (to keep and bear arms). (see Article I, Section 8). Freedom haters have found a way to exploit this as the federalists had feared. FH'ers intentionally misconstrue the meaning (such as "right of the people" vs. power/authority of the state).
I had an incredible discussion recently on the phrase "under the United States" and the scope of its meaning. It does not mean "under the several States". Usage within the Constitution itself demonstrates its proper meaning, as does usage of "right of the people" vs. power of the State (see Amendment 10). No hand waving appeals to tradition or founding principles are need, when the text itself is adequate.
Worst one for me was the 10 gauge magnum. Boy that one had a punch!
W/all due respect to a heavy student of the period, how can that be? Privateers wouldn't be used much if they didn't get good-sized cannon. Swivel guns would be useless against the Barbary pirates!
What happened - no guns before the letters of Marque, then stocked up thanks to gov permission, do their duty, then get disarmed and gov takes over the "ordnance"?
I'm talking ocean-going ships here, not local coastal militia.
Besides, you said "most" - not all - that means some had big cannon. So it seems moot to imply the 2ndA applied only to small arms.
Or did they just not care at the time if you bought your own real guns?
I sighted in the .458 off-hand rather than get a broken cheekbone from the recoil. D@mn thing was made to kill Cape Buffalo.
They weren't under any obligation to do so. Privateers were not citizens. The letters granted were in support of the declaration of war. You hire folks when you don't have enough. In this case, the Congress hired ships and crews, not citizens. The Bill of Rights is a completely different issue, it limited the power of the Federal government over its citizenry. Two separate and distinct issues.
Check this out for details on privateers. http://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/privateers.html
However, as to what the Founders "meant", it is better to find complete historical resources for exactly what they said. And what they meant.
Arms had a broader definition. Ordnance. Rifle. Gun. Mortar. Cannon. Knives. Swords. Even Grenades.
Not true. Many privateers were owned by citizens and manned by citizens. http://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/privateers.html
Let's see campaign finance restrictions designed to stifle Republicans right to free speech, gun control laws, court decisions against public display of 10 Commandments and Christmas trees, laws against "marriage"......hmmmmm.....I gues the democrats don't take civil liberties seriously, even though their holly grail is a woman's rigth to "privacy" and abortion.
You are still not giving the distincting due between citizens as individuals being protected from governmental tyranny, and vessels (whether privately owned or not) being hired to prosecute war.
Intentional or not.
Another major figure in modern constitutional law is Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe who is anti-gun and a liberal. Earlier versions of his famous text endorsed the states'-right view, but, having examined the historical evidence for himself, he now reluctantly admits the Amendment guarantees "a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes." [Tribe, American Constitutional Law, Vol. 1, pp. 901-902 (2000)].
I think he meant they were looking for ANY privateers, rather than citizens specifically.
However, the very fact that "citizens" are INCLUDED as a sub-set of "privateers", who could be from other places, means surely it was OK for our own citizens to have "big arms"/ordnance.
It is an arm. If it were .6 inch, it would be classified by BAFT as a destructive device.
Do I think the .5 vs .6 caliber is a common sense approach or supported by the constitution?
No, but it is what will be used by BAFT to toss you in jail.
"I'm not sure where the Constitution specifies "small arms". Was private ownership of cannons permitted by the founders?"
Your right there. I am looking at my Constitution right now. And it reads"...,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
It does not specify the size of the Arms.
Also...notice "Arms" is spelled using the Big A...not the little one...
AND...the part that is written "...., the right of the people..." Seems to specify that this Constitutional protection is for the PEOPLE......the citizens...not the state.
Robert, didn't you know already that the ONLY "choice" Dems care about is killing humans? (Both babies and sick old people.)
You would be correct. I believe it took several Frigates to conquer the Barbary Pirates.
I believe the 2A refers to "arms" as any means of defence for your personal protection and which could be used to overthrow a Tyranical government.
Am I wrong?
Agree.
Do you think the Second Amendment also applies to State and local governments?
Definitely wasn't my itention. What I was trying to distinguish is the intent of the 2A and how privateers were utilized. Quite a stretch from the original thread, but a good line of conversation anyways.
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.