Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BuffaloJack
The 2nd amendment was meant to insure that citizens could possess weapons sufficient to confront a trained army. In my mind this should be interpreted in that you should be able to own anything up to and including a heavy machine gun, bazooka or even artillery.

What Scalia said on FOX this last weekend was his interpretation of "bear arms" meant what a single citizen could carry. Which would be the same as what a foot soldier would be able to carry. As for ships and artillery (18th century or today) acquisition of those would require a FAIR FIGHT between the now rogue tyrant militia of the federal government and the new revolutionary civilian militia. No one wants massive destructive weapons in the hands of the Chicago SEIU or ACORN, or the TEA party. Those will have to be fought for and won. It will be mess, costly and very bloody but revolutions are just that. But it it the common citizen that must have an EQUAL fighting chance against federal foot soldiers. They knew back then that urban sniper and terror tactics can defeat even the largest and best equipped armies.

115 posted on 07/30/2012 5:22:38 AM PDT by USCG SimTech (Honored to serve since '71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: USCG SimTech

The Constitution’s “Letters of Marque and Reprisal” clause presumes the private possession of battleships and cannons.


130 posted on 07/30/2012 11:15:42 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson