Should any restrictions be placed upon megatonnage?
Posted on 06/03/2022 6:02:56 PM PDT by David Treibs
Do Second Amendment “Arms” Include Cannons? I would appreciate any additional materials that anyone may have.
“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
“The word ‘arms’ in the connection we find it in the Constitution of the United States, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the saber, holster pistols and carbine; of the artillery, the field piece, siege gun, and mortar, with side arms.” -English v State, Texas 473, 476 (1871-2)
“Cannon are constantly manufactured, when demanded, to a very considerable extent, in the public armories of the nation, and of the States, and on contracts, and for sale to associations of citizens, and to individual purchasers, for use at home, or for exportation.” Tench Coxe, Dec, 8, 1812, Report of Acting Secretary of the Treasury; Digest of Manufacturers; American State Papers, 1832
[11] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; Section 8: Powers of Congress US Constitution
Definition from Webster's 1828 dictionary (implicit ownership of cannons by private citizens): M`ARQUE
M`ARK , n. Letters of marque are letters of reprisal; a license or extraordinary commission granted by a sovereign of one state to his subjects, to make reprisals at sea on the subjects of another, under pretense of indemnification for injuries received. Marque is said to be from the same root as marches, limits, frontiers, and literally to denote a license to pass the limits of a jurisdiction on land, for the purpose of obtaining satisfaction for theft by seizing the property of the subjects of a foreign nation. I can give no better account of the origin of this word.
1. The ship commissioned for making reprisals.
I own a cannon.
so what?
Cannons...AND F-15s and nukes!
Yes.
The founding fathers purchased ans owned private cannons.
They loaned them to the Continental Army for the war.
One officer had to direct his troops to take his own cannons and fire on his own house, that a british commander was using as a hq.
So yes. Yes it does. Hell yes.
I like this one from him as well...
Sort of hard to carry a cannon into a shopping mall or movie theater without giving everyone plenty of warning. A cannon, however, doesn’t necessarily meet the definition of an arming weapon. By many historical definitions, it should be something easy to carry and incapable of inflicting area damage to random targets.
Back in the day citizens could own warships which would be the equivalent to a frigate or destroyer now and all the historical equal weapons of the day. It would be equal in today’s world of having the private ownership of an frigate with 5” guns, and VLS launchers loaded with missiles. The idea was to have the citizens on equal or BETTER footing than the government our founders had with good reasons a deep distrust of a strong central government we are living the reasons why they were right about that.
What about tanks? Say you had one that was fully functional, what would they do to you? Asking for a friend.
Yes.
The Supreme Court stand is because the USA has a standing army that can turn against the populace, the right for citizens to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.
I know there are certainly private citizens that own operational cannons, we use to have this oldtimer that would bring his out to the local fair and other civic events and fire it off. Now are their any special permits or other requirements to own one? I don’t have a clue about that.
“Do Second Amendment “Arms” Include Cannons?”
It’s supposed to but we have the Union Government which makes it up as it goes along.
Logically, cannons and even more powerful weapons, are what the people’s militia were intended to have to protect the country from a tyrannical regime. Protecting the country would mean that we would need to be as well-armed as the army of the tyrannical regime in order to be able to overcome the threat or at least to deter them.
If the people have lesser weapons, then, they don’t stand a chance, and the founding fathers intended for the people to be well-armed against any threat.
Should any restrictions be placed upon megatonnage?
Yes you could but in practice one had to have a letter of marque to put them in use.
Unless you were a rich nut and liked sailing around armed to the teeth.
Use them without and you’d get hung for piracy.
Also keep in mind it is in the Bill of Rights.
If the left breaks it, breaking away from a broken Constitution is an absolute right of every state.
They’ll get you on trailer registration.
Now if your cannon is on a boat, then that might work.
Why the hell not, if you can afford the ammo and use it ina judicious manner....
I’d be happy with a mini-gun.
I have the Cannon boxed set of DVDs.
Those are probably safe.
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.