The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers ... which was created in 1903, 112 years later.

Christian news in maine.com ^ | 18January, 2004 | Larry Austin

[newsgatherer]

Handgun Control Inc. says it wants to keep handguns out of the hands of the wrong people. Guess what. If you are a law abiding citizen who owns a handgun you have the "wrong hands."

Banning guns works. That is why New York and Chicago have such high murder rates.

Washington D.C. which has strict gun controls has a murder rate of 69 per 100,000. Indianapolis, without them has an awesome murder rate of 9 per 100,000. Gun control works.

You can incapacitate an intruder with tear gas or oven spray. If you shoot him with a .357 he will get angry and kill you.

A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman standing with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

The "New England Journal of Medicine" has some excellent articles on gun control just as "The American Rifleman" carries equally great articles on open-heart surgery.

The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard which was created in 1903, 112 years later.

The "right of the people peaceably to assemble" and "the right of the people to be secure in their homes" refers to individuals while "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

One should consult an automobile technician for vehicle repairs, a computer programmer for problems with your hard drive and Sara Brady for firearms expertise.

Most citizens cannot be trusted so we need firearms laws because we can trust citizens to abide by them.

If you are not familiar with most of the above you have not been following the firearms debate. In fact you haven't tuned in to the liberals who still have their hands in your pockets and on your firearms even though the pounding defeats ...

[orionblamblam]

> A flamethrower would be awesome.

Legalities aside, what would you do with one? I doubt the local gun range woudl appreciate it...

If you owned a few hundred acres of desert, maybe. But if you live in the city...

[Old Student]

"I guess what I'm trying to ask is: how and why do we decide which arms are and aren't allowed under the 2nd Amendment? "

If you want my "strict-constructionist" argument, anything the government can have, WE THE PEOPLE can have. The Pennsylvania and Kentucky rifles of the Revolutionary War period were the "battlefield superiority weapon" of the day. Like the M-16 in the 1960's, they were smaller caliber, and used less powder, than the predominant military weapons of their day. (that analogy is weak in some areas, and very strong in others, but that is subject for another discussion) The average Pennsylvania or Kentucky rifle of the day was .36 to .45 caliber, where the Brown Bess musket the English soldiers were armed with was .70 caliber. The smaller-caliber weapons used much less powder, were easier to carry, lighter in construction, and generally quite a bit more accurate than the Brown Bess, which was a smooth-bore weapon.

Smoothbore and rifle are important distinctions, as well, in firearms. A smoothbore has a hole drilled in the barrel that is roughly the same diameter all the way down the bore (which is what the hole is called, btw.) A rifled barrel has groves cut in it that twist down the bore, like a long, slow screw thread, and when the ball engaged those grooves, it caused the ball to spin when fired. This stabilized the ball, and helped the rifle to be more accurate than a similar smoothbore weapon. Most muzzleloading rifles used patches of cloth or leather to help the bullet (ball) catch the grooves of the rifling, and to keep the ball from falling out of the barrel.

You mentioned that you are not particularly firearms knowledgeable, so you might not know that caliber is the measurement of the diameter of the bullet in hundredths of an inch; i.e. .70 caliber is 70/100's of an inch diameter. Bullets then were mostly round balls, cast in a mold, or "shot" which was molten lead dripped into a pot of water, and might be more ovoid, but was usually used in a smoothbore weapon, and varied widely in size. They are where we get the term "shotgun" from, as they fired a bunch of smaller pellets, rather than one large ball. Market hunters sometimes used shotguns with a 1.5 inch bore.

The Brits, and most other European armies, fought in formations, where the rebels fought from behind trees and bushes, as the Indians had, until they were trained in the European manner. Fighting as irregulars, they often inflicted proportionately heavy casualties on the Brits, but they seldom won a battle, as they couldn't stand the massed fire of the British formations.

By the way, handguns were fairly common then, as well, for self-defense. They were expensive, but not as much so as the long guns were. Any gun at all was treasured; even broken guns were often willed to descendents. They were very much a way of life in Colonial and Revolutionary War times, and for long after.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Nonsense. There was never any such understanding. If the 2d used the term "weapons" there might be a scintilla of evidence for that interpretation.

Using the term "arms" limits the concept extensively.

[Lekker 1]

Yeah, you're right. The discussions the founding fathers had at the time of the drafting of the second amendment were fairly clear that the second amendment was meant to be the citizens check against the military, in so many words. And it is just as necessary today as ever.

[ctdonath2]

There is absolutely NOTHING which indicates the Founding Fathers intended ANY limitation on the "arms" referred to in the 2nd Amendment. To the contrary, these guys had crew-served explosive-shell cannons (used as lawn ornaments when not in use).

Considering that they had just gone thru a war to throw off tyrrany, and done so using personally-owned arms including the largest known at the time (cannons and battleships), they DELIBERATELY included the 2nd Amendment to ensure the people had the tools to take on a government - and win. The ultimate point of RKBA is protection against tyrrany ... and you can't do that effectively when limiting yourself to what an individual can carry.

[ctdonath2]

If you owned a few hundred acres of desert, maybe.

An awful lot of this country is desert or other wide-open space, owned in the hundreds of acres.

[Dead Corpse]

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

Just firearms that require gunpowder? What about edged weapons? Battle ships? Field cannons? Buy a clue.

[ctdonath2]

There was never any such understanding.

Bull. That IS the standard understanding. The government has no rights, only powers (based on individual rights) granted by the people.

[Lekker 1]

Yeah but in my home State, 90 percent of the desert land is owned by the big Gub'ment. (Hmmmm, I don't remember seeing anything in the Constitution about Fed being a landlord...)

[Another-MA-Conservative]

Nonsense. There was never any such understanding. If the 2d used the term "weapons" there might be a scintilla of evidence for that interpretation. Using the term "arms" limits the concept extensively.

Uh, no, you are a drawing a distinction based on modern definitions that did not exist at the time the Constitution was framed.

The founders had just thrown-off their own tyrannical government. Why would they chose to form a new one and give it exclusive power to once again impose tyranny?

[Dead Corpse]

Founders wanted "We the People" on an EQUAL footing with our standard military.

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." -- The Federalist, No. 29 - Alexander Hamilton

[metesky]

You are entitled to own what a combat infantryman carries.

IMO.

[Jim Verdolini]

I'm afraid I must disagree. The militia act of 1792 provides a specific list of what they expected the individual members of the militia to arrive with. This act was drafted by the very founders we are discussing. In addition, the Congress and State governments established magazines where arms such as cannon were stored for the use of this same militia and these arms were provided by government, in every case I am aware of.

Every court case I have read that addresses the idea of specific weapons covered by the 2nd specifically and only constitutionally protects arms appropriate to a militia. See Miller as an example.

There is not a scintilla of evidence that any arm greater than a individual arm was ever considered as an arm to be kept or provided by an individual militia member. There is considerable evidence to the contrary.

If you doubt me, provide a reference to a specific founder or a court case where the issue comes out as you claim. I can provide the opposite.

[nyg4168]

Thanks to all for your answers to my question. Need to run to a meeting, but I'll digest your responses and add my own a bit later. :)

[michigander]

Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)

[boofus]

Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787
by James Madison

Saturday, August 18
Summary of this Day
Table of Contents

IN CONVENTION
Mr. MADISON submitted in order to be referred to the
Committee of detail the following powers as proper to be
added to those of the General Legislature


"To dispose of the unappropriated lands of the U. States"

"To institute temporary Governments for New States arising therein"

"To regulate affairs with the Indians as well within as without the limits of the U. States



These propositions were referred to the Committee of detail which had prepared the Report and at the same time the following which were moved by Mr. Pinkney: in both cases unanimously.

"To fix and permanently establish the seat of Government of the U. S. in which they shall possess the exclusive right of soil & jurisdiction"

"To establish seminaries for the promotion of literature and the arts & sciences"

"To grant charters of incorporation"

"To grant patents for useful inventions"

"To secure to Authors exclusive rights for a certain time"

"To establish public institutions, rewards and immunities for the promotion of agriculture, commerce, trades and manufactures"

"That funds which shall be appropriated for1 payment of public Creditors, shall not during the time of such appropriation, be diverted or applied to any other purpose and that the Committee prepare a clause or clauses for restraining the Legislature of the U. S. from establishing a perpetual revenue"

"To secure the payment of the public debt"

"To secure all creditors under the New Constitution from a violation of the public faith when pledged by the authority of the Legislature"

"To grant letters of mark and reprisal"

So what are letters of mark & reprisal?

1. A document issued by a nation allowing a private citizen to seize citizens or goods of another nation.2. A document issued by a nation allowing a private citizen to equip a ship with arms in order to attack enemy ships.

I doubt the private ships were using bows and arrows to board and capture enemy warships. So yes private citizens DID own warships and cannon which were the most powerful weapons in existence at the time.

[shekkian]

You can incapacitate an intruder with tear gas or oven spray. If you shoot him with a .357 he will get angry and kill you.

I was in an arguement with my mother the other night, about my gun. (I live on my own.) She was concerned that, since I leave it in my bedstand drawer, I might shoot an intruder and be in serious trouble with the law. (I live in NH, so I'm not very worried about that.) I tried to explain to her that self-defense is a justifiable cause, and it's better than letting myself get killed. She only got more hysterical, and I couldn't get my point across.

She's not really a liberal, she just gets too much news from Peter Jennings.

[Beckwith]

I'm not responding to your question, but bringing your attention to one of your statements.

But there's also some limit on what arms the people are allowed to keep and bear.

Our rights come from the Creator. One of those rights is to keep and bear arms. Who or what are you referring to that has the authority "to allow" us our Constitutional rights.

[RobRoy]

Although I agree with you post, I know that if the feds knew of my nuclear stash, they'd still try to confuscate it. My nukes are for protection only.

Mine are very small. I doubt anyone more than a mile away would be affected other than feeling a hot back and forth wind.

I got them from the helpful friendly folks at "Neighborhood Nuclear Superiority." You just attach them to an ordinary garden hose for delivery to the target. I understand that their bigger ones will take out an entire city block.

Note to FBI/CIA: I'm kidding...

[ORECON]

Like Ann Coulter said, "If the courts interpreted the Second Amendment as they do the First Amendment, we could all own tactical nukes.”