Do you think our forefathers had current guns in mind when writing the 2nd Amendment?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well said,Peetza man!

Actually,prior to the GCA 68,we had the Service Armament catalogue,and for more vintage stuff,Bannermans.

I,general public,had I been older at the time,could have bought a 20mm semi-auto Lahti,a 55 Boyes,a 60 mm mortar,stens,grease guns,even a tank or armored car.They may have even had 37 mm anti-tank rifles,etc in there.

We could buy them.I recall 20 mm ammo was $1.25 a round.

And,we had no problem.No crimes I ever heard of.

Shooting sports were mainstream,we had B+W TV with Bonanza,Red Skelton,I Love Lucy, Paladin,Combat!no video games...comic books,Jeb Stuart,Sgt Rock..

I do not advocate restricting the First Ammendment,but,maybe,just maybe,for some people who have issues,mind altering substances whether prescribed,(some common factors in the mass shootings are prescribed)or just to "escape reality" People can go over the edge and blur the lines between reality and a movie or video game...not all people,but some.
We have had several years of crap economy,high unemployment,high stress ,hopeless times that drive people over the edge.
What is the news?The financial cliff?Mayan calender?

Regardless of political party,one of the responsibilties of government (defined by the Constitution) is a budget.Simple,yes?

The chaos?People can deal with winter because they trust in spring.What can we trust in?A talking head?The words of any politician?
Our currency suggests God.

The root cause of incidents of violence is not the instrument of violence.

Changing a fanbelt will not fix a flat tire.

We have a corrupt and incompetent government looking for scapegoat issues.

How would our founding fathers deal with the fact we are producing "human beings" that can kill classmates,or little children,or teachers,or mother?

BTW,I have held a wonderful,beautiful woman in my arms who was beaten to death with a fireplace poker by her own tweaker son.
Weren't they always using fireplace pokers as murder instruments on Perry Mason?We need a law!!

Or is that an incredibly stupid idea?

Giving up individual liberty will not help.It is exactly the wrong thing to do.
 
The founding fathers were pretty clear in their writings what they intended. They meant for the people to have what they needed to ensure they could preserve their rights and liberties from any threat, be it foreign or domestic.
 
Brian, it's not what I want, I'm not looking for anything other then where the risk is relative to the second amendment. If its so clear cut then I guess there is nothing to be concerned about? So why all the threads? ALL laws arebsubject to interpretation, that's why we have a Supreme Court, to adjudicate rulings of lower courts because laws and rulings are subject to interpretation, not just mine but judges and justices.
 
gc70 said:
Here is the North Carolina law; you can look up the other 40 or so states that have laws against private militias and/or paramilitary training.
Click to expand...

"Except under miltia laws"


The exception is right in it. The SPLC has a list of thousands of groups.

sent from the rust monster
 
Come and take it. said:
My history is probably not precise but the point is that mass killings were nothing new at the time the 2nd amendment was written.
Click to expand...

Not only were mass killings not new, but the weapons used were not even always "arms." Before the Revolution, the British and colonists engaged in biological warfare against the Indians during the French and Indian War. The Indians were given blankets from a smallpox hospital in hopes of spreading the disease widely through the Indian population.
 
gc70 said:
Not only were mass killings not new, but the weapons used were not even always "arms." Before the Revolution, the British and colonists engaged in biological warfare against the Indians during the French and Indian War. The Indians were given blankets from a smallpox hospital in hopes of spreading the disease widely through the Indian population.
Click to expand...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Later, but still a non firearms related mass killing. Unless you count the rifle he blew up his truck with.

sent from the rust monster
 
Government is a like a huge, hungry rabid pit bull. The Bill of Rights is the heavy chain that keeps him from eating you alive. Anytime the Govt. demands that you take that chain off or even just loosen it a little really bad things WILL happen. We really need that chain and it needs to be very strong. We must not believe ANY of the "necessary" reasons they claim to loosen it. As for "now one person can kill 30 people before anyone can get close to to him", that is not very likely if people are permitted to CCW anywhere (and are intelligent enough to do so). But that is what they want us to believe.
 
Last edited:
One fella who tried to debate me against "assault rifles" told me he felt these rifles were not what was meant in the writing of the 2nd...

I told him that "State of the art" weapons were to be included in the right that shall not be infringed....

He looked at me stupid and said that these rifles were not around back then...

I told him that "state of the art" weapons won the war that defeated the British and it was state of the art weapons they intended to be in the hands of citizens for all uses including the ability to defeat a tyrannical government...

The Framers of the nation would never expect us to use muzzle loaders against a government armed with machine guns and tanks...

Brent
 
In the USSC case U.S. v Miller, the government never contested that Miller was a member of the irregular militia, the case hinged on whether his shotgun was a military weapon. If anyone had shown up to defend the case and present evidence that short-barreled shotguns were used in battle, Miller would have prevailed and perhaps the entire NFA 1934 would have been overturned.

The Miller decision still establishes that military weapons (so called "assault weapons" and 30-round magazines) are the most constitutionally protected. I'm not sure the current Supreme Court is honest enough to rule that way. On the bright side, they tend to hold their previous decisions in VERY high regard (perhaps higher than the Constitution itself)
 
The average American voter will not listen to folks talking about needing to defend against a tyrannical U.S. government. To them, who's that, are we talking about those dear troops we support, that we all stand and clap for when they enter the airport?

These arguments seem to hit home with us, but will probably come off as kooky to the average Joe and Flo voter.

I say we tailor our arguments for other than "us".
 
Last edited:
This was clearly addressed by the Supreme Court in DC v. Heller, page 8:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications,e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
Click to expand...
 
So if I understand the opposition's interpretation of the bill of rights, then soldiers can be quartered in a condo or privately owned apartments. Lol

The constitution, as I see it, has three distinct and separate entities; the United States, the States and the People. So, to borrow from peetza,

.....the right of the people to store and eat cookies, shall not be infringed. There's no vagueness to it, the brevity of the 2a gives the government no wiggle room. It was not intended to be vague. There's really not much to argue about.

I'm a dummy and I can figure it out.
 
You know, after some reflection, discussions like this tend to be meaningless, much like the arguments over clips, a term which some manufacturers use with little regard for what we might think it means. What difference does it make what the original meaning of the 2nd amendment was, or what the militia was. I for one do not care to be bound by what they decided well over 200 years ago no more than I wish to be bound by things written 3,000 years ago, even though such things were thought to be very, very important. Sacrificied any animals lately?


Never has the militia been called out to overthrow a tyrannical government and I'm not sure one ever has been anywhere. After all, the only thing that will happen is that one government will be replaced by another, perhaps by two others, maybe even more. I cannot imagine that a government that comes to power by force of arms, by revolution, will be any better than the previous one. What the militia was used for was to put down rebellion, which it did fairly well, fight the Indians and repell invasion, the latter two which it did poorly.

It'd be nice if it could be rewritten but that'll never happen in my lifetime although that's not saying much.
 
I don't buy into the fight against tyranny argument, nor the militia argument.
The 2a doesn't specify what purpose the arms will be used for. What it does specify is the "right of the people" and "shall not be infringed" leaves nothing to the imagination. It's pretty strong wording.

The constitution and the bill of rights was written to deal with future events. It was intended to span centuries. Without it, this country would have died long ago.
 
"...the right to keep and bear arms." NOT "...the right to keep and bear muskets." They were intelligent. Of course they knew that muskets and pistols would advance just like everything else does.

Lucky for us gunners.:D
 
rickyrick
I don't buy into the fight against tyranny argument, nor the militia argument.
Click to expand...

Permiot me to introduce yo to the Federalist papers, som,ething every single American should read and be familiar with.


James_madison

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2012/12/madison-federal.html
Click to expand...
 
The key here is "well regulated militia", while I believe they would have expected/required/desired the militia to have equivalent arms, they also had an expectation that the militia was regulated, not simply citizens with arms. I believe that is where the 2nd amendment is weak as it pertains to civilian privileges of arms, and subsequently is at risk.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The key here is the right of the PEOPLE, not the right of the militia. The regulated militia would be chosen from the armed populace.

Why does everybody seem to agree the word PEOPLE means everybody in all amendments except the Second?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top