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

To: GulfBreeze

"Further. Heavy arms have always been illegal to the individual. I.E. The constitution does not protect anyones right to own a Bazooka, an operational tank, a scud missile, etc."

WRONG on all counts. If you want proof, read the section of the Constitution which grants Congress the authority to grant "Letters of Marque and Reprisal.' These were granted to PRIVATE OWNERS OF ARMED VESSELS. Also, many of the Cannons used at the beginnings of the Revolution were owned, if not in every case by individuals, by private militias. Crew-served weapons have been privately owned since the founding of the country and some even are, to this day... though, shamefully, it is done with the "permission" of gubmint, even though, Constitutionally, none such would be needed.

ALSO, I take strong exception to your second paragraph and the falsehoods it contains. One DOES have the right, unless on private property, where speech is at the will of the owner, to falsely yell "fire." HOWEVER, that person is then ALSO free to suffer the consequences of his actions, should injury or death ensue.

No "COmmunity" has any more "right" to ban or restrict private behaviours which do not include involuntary or coerced participation by others than you have the "right" to compel your neighbor to eat broccoli, just because you think it might be good for him or to force him to NOT eat cake and ice cream because he might get fat or have bad teeth.


346 posted on 08/22/2006 10:54:09 PM PDT by dcwusmc (The government is supposed to fit the Constitution, NOT the Constitution fit the government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies ]


To: dcwusmc; spunkets; Redcloak; t. pain

I probably expressed that pretty poorly but you may not agree with the following anymore.

While private individuals may have owned heavy arms, such ownership absolutely was not unrestricted.

The very "Letters of Marque and Repisal" you show are perfect example of the fact of that.

However, these letters were about behaviour and not ownership nor possession of any weapon. They COULD go up against enemey vessels with anything they wanted or otherwise had legally (even to the out and out use of SPITBALLS, though such an escalation might have seemed extreme). They allowed private individuals to perform acts of "Reprisal" against merchant ships flying the designated country's flags.

American merchant ships to this day carry some pretty heavy weapons. But beyond the personal arms, the heavy arms are licensed and "permitted". As it has always been (formally or informally.)


352 posted on 08/23/2006 4:47:07 AM PDT by GulfBreeze (No one can show me one shred of evidence that atheists even exist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | 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