Letter of Marque carried by Captain Millin of the American privateer Prince of Neufchatel during the War of 1812.
James Madison, President of the United States of America,
To all who shall see these presents, Greeting:
BE IT KNOWN, That in pursuance of an act of congress, passed on the 26th day of June one thousand eight hundred and twelve, I have Commissioned, and by these presents do commission, the private armed Brig called the Prince Neufchatel of the burden of three hundred & Nineteen tons, or thereabouts, owned by John Ordronaux & Peter E. Trevall of the City & State of New York and Joseph Beylle of Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania Mounting eighteen carriage guns, and navigated by one hundred & twenty nine men, hereby authorizing Nicholas Millin captain, and William Stetson lieutenant of the said Brig and the other officers and crew thereof, to subdue, seize, and take any armed or unarmed British vessel, public or private, which shall be found within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, or elsewhere on the high seas, or within the waters of the British dominions...
Years and years of government schools for one. Not knowing the history of privately equipped warships for another.Our first couple of wars involved rolling and ship-mounted privately owned cannons. Why does everyone seem to think the 2A only applies to something you can carry?
No restrictions, at all. Anything a soldier can carry and put into use, I should be able to do so as well.
The Lexington and Concord battles were about cannons. James Madison hired a privately owned warship with 18 of 'em.
The old you can't yelll fire in a theater excuse is really lame and tired and needs to go away. Come up with another example of you trying to tramole on my rights with your reasonable restrictions.
Quote:
The old you can't yelll fire in a theater excuse is really lame and tired and needs to go away. Come up with another example of you trying to trample on my rights with your reasonable restrictions.
Just because you are tired of it does not mean it doesn't sever a good purpose. We should not limit rights because they exist, but we can and should make laws that limit the improper use of a right. It requires some kind of action or some inaction that would lead to danger for others to form a restriction.
But if you want to use that as an example, I'll remind you that many colonists were restricted to holding only a pound of powder with the rest of their powder stored in community powder magazines set well away from other buildings. Most man o' war ships with heavy guns were denied docking rights due to the amount of powder aboard. Men came ashore in long boats.
It may be easier to eliminate those things which should not be considered militia weapons. Such as;
* WMDs - nuclear, chemical, biological & radiological weapons
* Long range delivery systems - Missles & rockets such as ICBMs, MLRS, TOW, aircraft, etc.
* Area denial munitions - mines, cluster bombs, napalm, etc.
* Explosive warheads - artillery shells, RPGs, etc.
I'm happy to say you'll wait no longer. Access to all such weapons are protected by the Second Amendment. There is no limiting language to be found in the amendment.I can easily agree this is valid. I'm still waiting for someone to make the argument that crew-served weaponry -- F18 fighters, missle systems, 155mm self-propelled guns or satellite launch platforms -- fall under the auspices of a "militia" arm (i.e. arms suitable for citizen-soliders).No restrictions, at all. Anything a soldier can carry and put into use, I should be able to do so as well.
A right does not include the ability to infringe on the rights of another. Safe storage of black powder in a town is a good idea. Those that lived on farms had no such restriction.Good for Jimmy. But if you want to use that as an example, I'll remind you that many colonists were restricted to holding only a pound of powder with the rest of their powder stored in community powder magazines set well away from other buildings.The Lexington and Concord battles were about cannons. James Madison hired a privately owned warship with 18 of 'em.
Again, all for black powder safety requirements. The advent of smokeless powder, much safer, precluded some of this. Black powder is a low order explosive, smokeless powder is a propellant.Most man o' war ships with heavy guns were denied docking rights due to the amount of powder aboard. Men came ashore in long boats.
All involving the basic part of rights which is that no right grants you a power to infringe on the rights of another.Just because you are tired of it does not mean it doesn't sever a good purpose. We should not limit rights because they exist, but we can and should make laws that limit the improper use of a right. It requires some kind of action or some inaction that would lead to danger for others to form a restriction. For instance;The old you can't yelll fire in a theater excuse is really lame and tired and needs to go away. Come up with another example of you trying to trample on my rights with your reasonable restrictions.
You have a right to freedom of speech; but you may not incite a riot.
You have freedom of religion; unless your religion requires killing non-believers.
You have the freedom of the press; but not to slander or libel.
You have the RKBA; not the right to carry into jails, courts or military reservations.
No, none of those weapons may be legitimately restricted. It's a right, not a privilege.Each of these requires a specific action that can be restricted.
The issue of what to restrict is a little more difficult to pin down.
What is a "militia" arm? In the traditional sense, it is those arms that an average citizen can bring to defend his community or state. The basic requirement is for a long gun that is of sufficient power to be used in a military battle. Some may carry handguns, such as officers or cavalry, in addition to other arms.
It may be easier to eliminate those things which should not be considered militia weapons. Such as;
* WMDs - nuclear, chemical, biological & radiological weapons
* Long range delivery systems - Missles & rockets such as ICBMs, MLRS, TOW, aircraft, etc.
* Area denial munitions - mines, cluster bombs, napalm, etc.
* Explosive warheads - artillery shells, RPGs, etc.
These are not restrictions on ownership, which we have now, none of which are lawful.Those who want to argue the legitimacy of owning mortars, artillery and armored vehicles must also accept the legitimacy of storing munitions in bunkers well away from other structures. It doesn't matter if they are privately or publicly owned bunkers, but storing munitions safely would be a restriction based on not only public safety but sheer prudence (even the military stores munitions away from other structures).
* WMDs - nuclear, chemical, biological & radiological weapons
* Long range delivery systems - Missles & rockets such as ICBMs, MLRS, TOW, aircraft, etc.
* Area denial munitions - mines, cluster bombs, napalm, etc.
* Explosive warheads - artillery shells, RPGs, etc.
No, none of those weapons may be legitimately restricted. It's a right, not a privilege.
I'm still waiting for someone to make the argument that crew-served weaponry -- F18 fighters, missle systems, 155mm self-propelled guns or satellite launch platforms -- fall under the auspices of a "militia" arm (i.e. arms suitable for citizen-soliders).
I'll remind you that many colonists were restricted to holding only a pound of powder with the rest of their powder stored in community powder magazines set well away from other buildings. Most man o' war ships with heavy guns were denied docking rights due to the amount of powder aboard. Men came ashore in long boats.
first diseased corpse thrown over a city/fortress wall.
Supersonic flight isn't allowed over the US, so why drag around those fancy engines?If I'm rich enough that I can afford to use an F-18 to go visit the in-laws, then what's the problem, other than the lack of meaningful luggage capacity?
Supersonic flight isn't allowed over the US, so why drag around those fancy engines?