This Ping List is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
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 ...
I agree - either ‘Home Defense Rifles’, or ‘Personal Defense Weapons’. The latter is what the Dept. of Homeland Security called select-fire AR’s when they submitted a RFP. If it’s good enough for them, it’s adequate for me.
We are waiting!
I always get a kick out of “professors” who somehow think the “people” of the 2A are different from the ones mentioned in the 1A, 4A, 9A and the 10A - not to mention the ones mentioned in the first 3 words of the Constitution; We the People
Agreed. We desparetly need the president to stay the course he originally charted; our rights are hanging in the balance - and barely in our favor.
How would a liberal logically explain that away?
Seems pretty clear to me.
What was the purpose of this diatribe ? It was to keep the focus on guns and the NRA. Not on the perverted policies that created and permitted a tragedy to occur known as Parkland.
At least it’s a breath of fresh air that 100% of the comments at the link are pro-rights, and against this egotistical pinhead.
Ross Olmos’s blathering built on false notion that anyone gives a crap what he thinks.
Given the technology of the day the 2nd made sure the People and the Government were on a level playing field.
Only by sheer numbers and their arms are the People keeping tyrants at bay.
This Boob Olmos one of the tyrants
A very old, very totalitarian and completely incorrect interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
I defy this idiot, and all others like him, to find a statement by one of our founders that mentions “the right of states to have a militia”.
They are.
Ross Olmos is built on the false notion that only the governing authorities should have guns. Let that happen & see how long we last as a country.
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
“Arcane language?”
I suppose. If you don’t speak English.
5.56mm
Every one of Ross' arguments are tired old chestnuts that gun-grabbers trot out. Each has been thoroughly debunked on the internet (I know, I know), with the final stake driven through the heart in the Heller majority opinion.
Not that it matters, but an AR-15 is not a military weapon.
If AR-15’s are assault rifles than it follows that they must have been used by our military. But wait, AR-15’s, originally designed for civilian use as one shot per trigger pull sporters, were adopted by the USAF and then the entire DOD with both semi and automatic capability. They were re-designated as the M-16 to reflect these enhanced capabilities as well as a change to the chambers allowing for more powerful ammunition in 5.56 instead of the original .223 caliber. To this day many AR-15’s can only shoot the non-military .223 ammo. Are they still an “Assault Rifle”? But even those with dual ammo acceptance still fire but one shot per trigger pull not unlike the popular Ruger Farm and Ranch model and there is no clamor to outlaw them. The U.S. Armed Forces never used a one trigger pull per shot AR-15 in battle to my knowledge.
“I would like to challenge Sen. Rubio to publically explain why any American civilian actually neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeds to own a military assault weapon.”
That word alone will send people flocking to gun stores. NOBODY wants to be told what their needs are. What pompous arrogance!
The language is not “arcane” and it is easily understood.
What does the 2nd Amendment mean?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What does it mean? Well let’s go through it.
“well regulated” - This DOES NOT mean that Congress has the power to impose dozens of laws telling you what guns you can have, where you can have them,, etc. It means well trained, proficient in the use of small arms.
“militia” - Regardless of what anyone says, the National Guard is NOT “the militia”. In fact the National Guard was not created until 1916, over 125 year after the Constitution was ratified. The Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to call up the militia for various purposes. Merriam Webster defines it as: a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
‘The militia was called to quell the riot.’
b : a body of citizens organized for military service 2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
The Militia Act of 1792 defines it as: each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside....
It was revised and replace in 1903 which expanded the definition by leaving out the “white male” requirement and dividing the militia into two groups, the organized militia comprised of the National Guard and the naval Militia, and the unorganized militia, which means virtually everyone else.
“being necessary to the security of a free State” - Not the individual states, but the country as a whole DEPENDS on the armed population to defend it against tyranny and oppression. Note: it says nothing about hunting or shooting clays.
“the right” - A right is RECOGNIZED by the Constitution as being granted by God. It is not subject to vote by the majority and even if the 2nd Amendment were repealed, THE RIGHT WOULD STILL EXIST!
“of the people” - Every time “the people” is mentioned in the Constitution, it means “the individual”. The writers of the Constitution weren’t just being sloppy and accidentally used “the people” when they really meant “the state”.
“to keep” - To possess firearms that are suitable for service in the militia. In US vs, Miller 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that arms suitable for use in the militia were specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment and that Miller’s sawed off single shot shotgun was unsuitable for militia duty. In 1939 they didn’t have the AR15, but machine guns and semi automatic firearms had been around for over 40 years. This right included ammunition as the militia was expected to show up with ammunition for their firearm.
“and bear Arms” - To carry in public without fear of harassment.
“shall not be infringed” - To infringe means the encroachment, breach, or violation of a right, law, regulation, or contract. Does telling people they have to jump through hoops and ask permission from the government and restrict when and where and what type of gun you can have encroach on the 2nd Amendment? If you think it doesn’t, how ridiculous would you sound if you claimed that EVERY publicly posted memo or sentence or news story had to be approved by a government official?
Finally, if you think that the AR-15 isn’t covered by the 2nd Amendment, close your computer, get out a quill and ink and write me a letter explaining your position. Then give the letter to a man on a horse and have him deliver it to me. THEN we’ll have a nice discussion about why you are wrong.
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.