NRA trains members to attack enemies without mercy

Thomas wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Therefore, it seems apparent to me, as it does to many other students of history, that the intent is to prevent exclusive enrollment in the militia. It give all citizens the right to participate in the militia, without further qualification.

Okay, so what would constitute a violation of that right by Congress?

Don't Ask, Don't Tell - the local Roughnecks?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

...it is with some reluctance that I am compelled to say that your statement here is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen in this forum -- and I've read a lot of Brandon's posts.

Imagine my distress....

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Are you suggesting that howitzers did not exist at the time of the drafting of the second amendment?

Actually I had mentally moved on to bazookas, hand grenades, and machine guns. How about them?

Militia men were expected to show up with their rifles or muskets. Bazookas and machine guns, therefore, would not be "militia-weapon-like" enough to warrant protection under the second amendment. Hand grenades existed at the time of the adoption of the second amendment: if the drafters wanted to include hand grenades as "arms," they could have specified them.

1 Reply

Setanta wrote:

There is no good reason to state that the IInd Amendment does or does not protect the right to possess assault rifles. It is a subject upon which the Federal Courts in general, and the Supremes in particular, have never directly ruled.

Missing from this debate, and virtually everything I've dug up is a reasonable definition of "Assault Rifles". The century old technology of "semi-automatic" doesn't seem reasonable to me. This definition would be incredibly overbroad if the intention was to focus on "Assault Rifles". So, what constitutes an "Assault Rifle"? Fully automatic has already been addressed, so that doesn't fit. Large capacity clips are readily available for everything from .22 rabbit gun to Ak-47, and beyond so that doesn't fit. The only mechanical difference between an AK-47 and a standard Semi-Automatic deer rifle is it's "scary appearance." While it's true that "conversion kits" are more readily available for the AK; why would anyone assume the availability of "conversion kits" for standard Deer Rifles wouldn't increase to fill the gap? That would be like outlawing Chevy Camaro's to reduce drag racing, while leaving Pontiac Firebirds alone (basically, the same car with a different appearance.)

If the intention is to reduce the availability of Fully Automatic weapons, while not addressing hunting weapons; wouldn't the only logical course be to implement more stringent laws against Fully Automatic weapons and "conversion kits" for same? I challenge anyone to provide a definition for "Assault Rifle" that is reasonable. Without which; how could you reasonably regulate them?

As for 2A, we all have opinions as to the intent, and how it should be adapted or applied today. I read "the right to keep and bear arms" as citizens armed with the same technology as the government in that day. Since technology has changed so dramatically; I view any court's interpretation as "legislating from the bench". I think a serious congressional debate over a constitutional amendment is called for.

0 Replies

Bill, all good points, but I don't think anyone will try to answer your questions.

0 Replies

A selective fire, long arm, and lighter than a battle rifle. M-14 at a scoosh over 9lbs was a battle rifle.

0 Replies

Back to Zumbo, he was way too uninformed to have the position of authority, via the media, that he did. He may have been cocktailed up after his long day in the field when he exhibited his stupidity, but that is how many a career changing event occurs.

The gun tent is really, really big.

0 Replies

I can't figure out why Set thinks I was showing him a militia map?

He sure is a legend in his own mind.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Thomas wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Are you suggesting that howitzers did not exist at the time of the drafting of the second amendment?

Actually I had mentally moved on to bazookas, hand grenades, and machine guns. How about them?

Militia men were expected to show up with their rifles or muskets. Bazookas and machine guns, therefore, would not be "militia-weapon-like" enough to warrant protection under the second amendment. Hand grenades existed at the time of the adoption of the second amendment: if the drafters wanted to include hand grenades as "arms," they could have specified them.

Two unrelated points:

1) Were there any right-to-bear-arms cases involving such heavy weaponry in the founding era? If I remember correctly, the cases that interpreted similar provisions in state constitutions were about concealed carrying laws or weapons at the low end of the spectrum: thieves carrying knives etc. Has any founding-era court held that founding era citizens couldn't carry hand grenades?

2) Your interpretation raises the same question I asked Setanta: How can Congress ever violate the Second Amendment? If the amendment only protects the right of the people to carry weapons Congress expects them to carry, Congress can completely disarm the citizenry by "expecting" it to carry no more weapons at all. With that in mind, can you describe to me a scenario that, under your interpretation of the Second Amendment, would constitute a violation of it by Congress?

0 Replies

For your consideration:

An inventory and census being essential to a well-ordered militia all townships consisting of greater than 100 citizens shall, no less than once a year, rally together on the nearest public square or suitable park for purposes of presentation of all available arms and able citizens to support same.

Joe(Drills are optional)Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

For your consideration:

An inventory and census being essential to a well-ordered militia all townships consisting of greater than 100 citizens shall, no less than once a year, rally together on the nearest public square or suitable park for purposes of presentation of all available arms and able citizens to support same.

Joe(Drills are optional)Nation

I'll need a large tent. At least a couple acres.

0 Replies

I think it was Joe who wrote:

As for 2A, we all have opinions as to the intent, and how it should be adapted or applied today. I read "the right to keep and bear arms" as citizens armed with the same technology as the government in that day.

So I propose everyone should be entitled to their very own miniaturized personal thermonuclear device (MPTD). It is a fact that no-one with a MPTD as ever been attacked let alone raped. You have to make bold steps sometimes if you want a safer society.

0 Replies

Then I propose that the 1st Amendment does not apply to radio, television, or internet.

0 Replies

How many amendments are there to the Constitution anyway?

And why didnt they get it right first time?

And while I'm about it what is the point of a written constitution when you keep having to rub bits out and add new bits?

Do the Supreme Court Justices use pencils?

0 Replies

What do they put in the tea over there anyway?

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

What do they put in the tea over there anyway?

27 amendments eh? I bet teacher wasn't pleased.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Two unrelated points:

1) Were there any right-to-bear-arms cases involving such heavy weaponry in the founding era? If I remember correctly, the cases that interpreted similar provisions in state constitutions were about concealed carrying laws or weapons at the low end of the spectrum: thieves carrying knives etc. Has any founding-era court held that founding era citizens couldn't carry hand grenades?

I am not aware of any such cases, and I doubt that such cases exist.

Thomas wrote:

2) Your interpretation raises the same question I asked Setanta: How can Congress ever violate the Second Amendment? If the amendment only protects the right of the people to carry weapons Congress expects them to carry, Congress can completely disarm the citizenry by "expecting" it to carry no more weapons at all. With that in mind, can you describe to me a scenario that, under your interpretation of the Second Amendment, would constitute a violation of it by Congress?

It's not so much "expecting them to carry" as it is "expects them to carry as part of a well-regulated militia." Congress can violate someone's right under the second amendment, then, by banning the private ownership of arms that someone would be expected (or required) to use in militia service.

Now, I hasten to add, that's my own personal reading of the amendment. I would further add that, under that interpretation, the government, upon deciding that the state would provide all weapons for use by the militia, could ban all private ownership of weapons. That's not the prevailing interpretation of the amendment, and I doubt that any legislature would go that far, but I think that's a fair reading of both the text and the intent of the second amendment.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

I think it was Joe who wrote:
As for 2A, we all have opinions as to the intent, and how it should be adapted or applied today. I read "the right to keep and bear arms" as citizens armed with the same technology as the government in that day.

That was O'BILL who said that.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
I think it was Joe who wrote:
As for 2A, we all have opinions as to the intent, and how it should be adapted or applied today. I read "the right to keep and bear arms" as citizens armed with the same technology as the government in that day.

That was O'BILL who said that.

ok sorry Joe.

0 Replies

I wanna open a gun shop on the magnificent mile.

0 Replies

NRA trains members to attack enemies without mercy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know