Skip to comments.2nd: The founders meant what they wrote about arms
Posted on 07/03/2006 6:45:30 PM PDT by kerryusama04
click here to read article
the amendment guarantees this right to individuals.
” the Second Amendment not only guarantees the right of the People to keep and bear arms, uninfringed, but also the right to organize as militia to defend themselves against the government.
That’s why the federal and state governments work so hard to neuter it.”
The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.
You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not.I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States.Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.
ran out of tall trees/short ropes ???
see 24 as well...
Sorry, but just because you believe 'Arms' are not 'Ordnance' does not make it so. You've let your feelings get in the way. This is the way liberalism works, - liberalism says that whatever I "feel" is right or just ought to be done.
Conservatism says that we must analyze and decide what is actually in the law or the Constitution and then enforce that.
Sorry Bruce, but liberals contradict themselves in consecutives sentences, conservatives usually dont...
This referred to items that were typically provided by the government - cannons, explosives, ships, etc. An individual could own ordnance, but it was not expected to be that way, so it was not considered a right and was not put in the 2nd Amendment.
Anything that 'We the people' pay $$$ for the government to kill us with...WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO PURCHASE OURSELVES...
The 'nuke' card usually smoke out anti-gun zealots IMO...
"area" arms such as cannon or wmd [very large area] require lotsa $$$ to posess safely, and that is subject to reasonable restriction. Their "USE" would also be restricted accordingly...Acions/consequences...imo
Well.. wrong. Well laid out, but it completely ignores the fact that private ship owners frequently armed their ships with cannons to ward off piracy or hostile action in foreign waters. This is why the government came up with the idea of Letters of Marque and Reprisal. They could commission ships that were ALREADY armed.
If you can afford a TOW, Howitzer 105mm, VULCAN, M134-D, aircraft carrier, or a submarine... go for it.
Trying to parse the Right to Arms downward only sets up arbitrary lines that the gun haters will use to say some guns are too small, and others too large, for civilian use.
Denying that "ordnance" has a "militia purpose", or that "arms" didn't mean "ordnance", is silly. If we need those very types of arms to go after an out of control government, then we should have a right to obtain them by peaceful means. That was the main intent of the Founders.
Wow... didn’t even notice that at first. Resurrected an old thread did we? Good timing...
That is your whole argument in a nutshell huh?
I will go elsewhere, where I can get a reasoned argument. Thanks for playing.
bump for later
I could care less what some idiot liberal/socialist/commie “scholar” considers embarrassing. I am a FREE MAN. I WILL own firearms, always, as is my HUMAN, CIVIL, and Constitutional RIGHT to do. And I will own the best, most expedient means possible to secure my RIGHT to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. PERIOD.
One has but to read the Federalist Papers, and numerous other writings of Madison, Adams, Jay, Hamilton, and Jefferson, to understand this. It is black and white. Libs like to try to grey things down, but this is something that cannot be done upon closer inspection of the original papers. Hence, re-write history; hence, dumb down the children in the schools; hence, control the media and spin the argument.
One should ALWAYS ask Libs why they want LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS disarmed. And what do they have in store for us once we’re disarmed? (We already know the answer - history shows it over and over, in all their little utopian “Worker’s Paradise” worlds).
The immediate next response to a gun-grabbing lib should be this:
I’m willing to DIE to keep this right; are you willing to die trying to take it away? You personally - not some poor cop or soldier following orders and kicking in doors. You, Mr. Lib, personally? Because you will in fact start a civil war. And it won’t be pretty. This right was paid for in American blood; it will not be given up cheaply.
That is the ONLY response they should get from us. Call them what they are - fascist thugs, control freaks, and socialist useful idiots.
The 2nd Amendment - By Any Means Necessary. Live free or die, indeed, Gilbo_3; very well said. Sums it all up for me.
I would however change just one point...
One should ALWAYS ask Libs why they want to criminalize people who are otherwise LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS in their efforts for said citizens to be disarmed.
prolly not worded very well, but expands the thought...
I will not go quietly...
You wrote, “Sorry, but just because you believe something, does not make it so. You started out so well, analyzing the words in the 2nd Amendment - but then you let your feelings get in the way. This is the way liberalism works, not real conservatism - liberalism says that whatever I “feel” is right or just ought to be done. Conservatism says that we must analyze and decide what is actually in the law or the Constitution and then enforce that, even if it leads to outcomes we don’t like (and change the law through the established methods if we don’t like the outcome). “
You have taken time to write a detailed and thought provoding posting—thank you for that. Actually, the poster whom you criticize as letting his “feelings” get in the way, like a liberal does, did nothing of the sort. He indicated he “truly believe(d)” and that is not an expression of emotion, like liberals often do.
Looking now at your posting. You indicate that just believing something does not make it so. You then return us to the 18th century. However, to do so misses the point of not only the 2nd amemdment but the entirety of the Bill of Rights. It was not intended to be designed only for the current technology of the time but was put forth as a more enduring right of the people. If we were to restrict arms to only the most basic personal small arms we would certainly be in conflict with 18th century technology as well as enduring rights. Cannon, wagons, horses, pistols, pikes, and all the appropriate military technology of the time was useful to defend the people and the tiny new nation at the time was ill-equipped to provide but a small amount of the needs. Accordingly, non-US government owned technology was considered necessary to equip the militia to defend the nation and arms from a variety of sources to include those of France, individuals, and groups were drawn upon. Yes, a tank in private hands (and several older types are non-government owned, by the way) is not inconsistent with the intent of the 2nd amendment. It is cost that will keep modern military technology out of most private hands.
If the founders had intended only basic small arms to be in the hands of the people, they would have barred cannons and all else. The people would have not kept up with the threats posed to them, if restrictions on their self-defense were imposed. On the contrary, Americans need to keep up in personal arms with the arms advances adopted by our adversaries. That is essential to effective self-defense.
Of course, this is an extremely uncomfortable thought for those who just can’t accept the right of individuals to own or control anything that isn’t approved by them or others under the umbrella of government. However, that is the way the right is expressed both in the Federal and many state documents. Follow the process, if you want it changed. Arguing that it doesn’t exist threatens the right as it threatens our legal process of changing rights.
I am in no way arguing that the average person should obtain his or her own personal Abrams. I am arguing that it is upon you to argue whether the right to decide is the right of the people or the authority of government. Your argument is not strong. Whose right is it—and why? Explain compellingly and correctly-—or follow the process to remove the right from the people.
I don’t mean to criticize too harshly, only point out that the 2nd amendment does not have a formal limit of sophistication, power, size, or complexity built in. The Miller opinion was flawed in that the person did not appear—the court offered an opinion that military arms (whatever you want to call them, ordnance, arms, whatever) were the subject of the amendment. Now, if you want to argue that the amendment does not protect your hunting rifle, then you have the Miller opinion to stand on—I can’t so easily argue that point although the difference between hunting and military rifles has been relatively small most of history. If you want to state that the Acme surface-to-air anti-roadrunner missile launcher is not protected, well, you may be on to something.
You'd think that an editorial headlined, "the founders meant what they wrote about arms," would perhaps actually quote something from the founders wrote about arms. But he doesn't.
Argh! I hate bad punditry.
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.