Posted on 03/14/2018 1:56:27 PM PDT by rktman
As a first step, I would like to challenge Sen. Rubio to publically explain why any American civilian actually needs to own a military assault weapon.
The 2nd Amendment of our Constitution consists of 26 words written in arcane language that has caused much confusion down through the years. Since the amendment was written at a time in our history where virtually every home contained a flintlock musket and gun ownership was an accepted, normal part of everyday life, it’s reasonable to believe that, rather than dealing with individual gun ownership, the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the right of each state to have its own “well regulated militia.”
However, the NRA has taken the last 14 words of the amendment, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” strictly out of context, to promote a pro-gun agenda that has been amazingly successful. The NRA is recognized as the most powerful and influential government lobbying group in the U.S. They have bought and/or intimidated many politicians — including our own Sen. Marco Rubio, who has taken millions from the NRA — into adopting and promoting their agenda, which includes the following:
(Excerpt) Read more at ocala.com ...
The same old,tired flntlock argument could be used to limit freedom of the press to manually typeset hand cranked printing presses. The Founders didn’t foresee radio, TV, modern printing presses, cell phones,computers, and the internet,thus they have no free speech protection.
.
>> “They know exactly what intent and wording is here from the federalist paper writings debating the amendments.” <<
They’re trying to forget!
.
1. The people who wrote the Constitution were familiar with the essentials of what is a short step to modern firearms. George Washington saw a sales pitch for, and turned down only because of manufacturing limitations, demonstration of the Puckle Gun (basically a machinegun). Thomas Jefferson personally gave Lewis & Clark the equivalent of a 22-shot semiautomatic .45 caliber rifle.
2. Militia Act of 1792 obligated all draft-suitable citizens equip themselves with rifles etc equivalent to what any soldier would have, or meet, on the battlefield. Today that would be a suppressed M4 with 1 case of ammo.
3. I’m more concerned about 922(o) completely prohibiting any ownership of modern standard-issue military arms period. I’ve ponied up the $400 for a suppressed semi-auto M4 SBR, but that the feds would jail me having an actual M4 should be more concerning to everyone.
You are correct of course. Thanks.
I'll bite. How can we have a well regulated militia without superior firepower?
They don't even win that argument.
Yes. The Hughes Amendment and the National Firearms Act are clear, undisputable, violations of the Second Amendment.
26 words written in arcane language
Only for those where English is their Second Language or the Really Stupid in our society.
Love how this headline is written to imply this Ross Olmos is someone we should have heard about or care what he has to say.
Thanks - I’m saving those.
See my profile...
“explain why any American civilian actually needs to own a military assault weapon.”
This is especially disingenuous when considering how very strictly regulated true military firearms are in both the United States and Canada (where only those registered to the legal owner before January 1 1978 are allowed) and also that no legally owned fully automatic rifle has ever been used by it’s legal owner in the commission of a violent crime in these two countries.
Love how this headline is written to imply this Ross Olmos is someone we should have heard about or care what he has to say. “Stand back everyone, ROSS OLMOS is speaking!”
.
Everything about the “gun grabber” philosophy is dishonest and disingenuous.
.
.
>> “Why do I have a gun ? Because I can.” <<
And because not having one is irresponsible and insane.
.
Please read the Second Amendment and apply the commas, which are clearly separating two rights, not just the militia. The second being the people, having right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Those are two rights, both (by comma) shall not be infringed. See Second Amendment in bright blue square in link.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-ii
“written in arcane language”
It ain’t Latin, dumb***.
Following his line of reasoning though, abortion is a threat to the public at large, since it’s reducing the birthrate we need to sustain the country. So individual women’s rights need to be superseded to protect us from the threat of abortion.
Islamic terrorism is also a threat to the public at large, so individual muslims’ right to freedom of religion needs to be superseded to protect us from the threat of muslim terror.
He should agree with those positions too, right?
You can say dumbass. It’s okay. ;-)
Does he mean the same arcane language with which the first amendment is written? Because if it’s good enough to interpret the first amendment, then it’s good enough for the second, which, of course does not mention ball and musketry. He is just reading what he wants into it, where it’s convenient to his twisted ideology. So deceitful.
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.