A well regulated Militia

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Friday, July 25, 2025 19:29
VIEWED: 8277
PAGE 3 of 7

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

LANCER

Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:31 PM

their is nothing unChristlike about defending yourself

Well, here I am

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 4:12 PM

These took some digging folks, but it's well worth it.

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).

That means, yes, the 2nd Amendment means durn well that if you wanna mount a 105mm in your front yard, by all means, be our guest.

Still think our Gov gives a damn about that document?

-F

CITIZEN

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 7:27 PM

So you can have a musket, but a 9mm auto loader is right out. That's good to know, only 18th century weapons are constitutionally protected, everything else can be taken away.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:03 PM

I could be happy with a brace of pistols and a cutlass. Arr!

Will you concede the percussion cap? I like an all-weather ignition system. ;-)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FLATTOP

Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:00 PM

The wording of the 2nd ammendment was no accident. Further reading from the period in which it was written indicates that every able bodied (capable of lifting, loading, discharging a weapon) male (sorry ladies, we are talking about 1700's (even today women are not permitted in front line combat positions (which is not to say they do not see combat))) constituted the malitia.
Every time the U.S. Constitution uses the word Power, it is referring to the State. When it uses the word Right, it is referring to "The People".
"The People" mentioned in the 2nd ammendment are the same "the People" from the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th ammendments. Unless you are willing to propose that the entire Bill of Rights lists only things the State may do, we all get to keep our weapons.
The 2nd ammendment was put into the Constitution specifically to provide the People with the means to overthrow the Government, should it prove to be tyranical. Our right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting for food. It has to do with each of us possessing the means to take human life. It is intended to make the government fear the people.
From the Declaration of Independence, "...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes desttructive of these Ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."
There is an ancient Roman (or is it Greeek?) law that reads in effect, "All citizens must be armed. No subjects may ever bear arms."

Walt Disney said it quite eloquently, "K-K-K-Blam! Elimination. Lack of education."

As an aside:
The Star Trek Next Gen movie where they rescued the really old (near immortal) folk from wherever it was contained the following exchange:
Capt. Picard, "We can beam down sufficient weapons to arm all of you."
Woman, "We will not fight. It would mean abandoning everything we stand for."
And then the STNG crew get them selves shot at trying to save them.
It is my opinion that if you are unwilling to fight for your own survival, you do not deserve protection. Unable to fight, even being a liability if you try to help those who defend you, I can forgive. Being able, and unwilling... you have chosen death.

Do you know what your sin is Captain?
Aww Hell. I'm a big fan of all seven.

STORYMARK

Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:13 PM

Personally, I support the right to own guns, but I also think they should be registered, and that ownership should involve proper education.

The problem is, there are too many loons on either side of the debate (which is true in any issue these days, it seems). On the one hand, you have those who want all guns banned, which is impractical and a violation of our rights. On the other, you have the people who think they need several machine guns or assault rifles for personal defense, many of whome are just flat-out gun fetishists.

I thought things were doing pretty well for a while - then Bush decided to (against the advice of just about every agency but the NRA) let assault rifles off the banned list. Since then, I know at least 3 guys (who, though friends, I'd class as gun-fetishists) have bought assault rifles, which were unregistered, and converted them illegaly to fully-automatic. Now, these are guys I trust not to use them dangerously, but if I persoanlly know of 3 people to do this in the span of a few months, I shudder to think of who else might be working on simmilar projects.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

WORKEROFEVIL

Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lancer:
their is nothing unChristlike about defending yourself

In regards to this statement, defending yourself kind of its unChristlike. He says if someone hits you, turn the other cheek. If someone tries to take your shirt give your coat, too. Supposedly you'll be provided with the riches you deserve in Heaven. Meanwhile, you'll be cold and bruised here on Earth, but too bad.

As to the gun issue, I think we need more regulation on who can get guns. In order to purchase a gun, you should first be required to take a training course in gun safety and proper use. Someone included a list of cases of people defending themselves with guns. The list of accidental shootings is much, much longer. Safety is vital when it comes to guns. Also, a handgun is sufficient for defending yourself. There's no rational reason to own an assault rifle. People just want them because they think they're fun and cool and oh so destructive. Personally, I'd love to see ALL guns completely eradicated. Also all bombs and missiles and such. Seeing as I'm not an idiot, I know that won't happen so I'd at least like to see more control over the sale of guns. Mandatory training courses (as said above), background checks, and registration that needs to be updated every year. This is so people can't shoot someone and then claim that there gun was stolen months ago they just hadn't gotten around to reporting it. There's my two cents.

PIRATEJENNY

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 12:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

The meaning of the Right to Bear Arms

Hello all,

The Constitution was written with a rather interesting provision. It says "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."

Now, most people who pay attention to my posts know that I am an advocate of gun (and other) weapon ownership. They know that I have carried a weapon for sport and defense. They know I feel strongly about the right of the individual to protect themselves.

However, given all of these facts... I also must admit that the Constitution appears to grant citizens the right to keep and bear arms only by an accident of wording. I do not believe the federalists intended to protect the right of individuals to have armaments or firearms. I also do not believe it occurred to them that such a right would need protecting. I honestly think they were referring to actual state-run militias when they wrote the second ammendment.

Now, I can't believe very many (if any) of the Federalists who wrote the constitution thought that a man ought to be disallowed to carry a rifle for hunting, or a dirk or pistol for defense. But because the idea of completely disarming the population was so far from their minds, I really feel the 2nd ammendment only protects this right entirely by accident. Because of this, I fear for our right to keep and bear arms, because we are one interpretation ruling away from losing it.

What do you all think?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

I think fire arms does more harm then good, if your a hunter you should only be able to borrow a gun, and return it after your finished using it for hunting purposes only.

As for the country having an armed Milita, its useless, actually it could be considered a joke and everytime I hear someone make a statement that they need a gun because they might have to protect themselves from the government I laugh, maybe back in the 17 and 1800's that would have worked, but lets say a pistol or a shot gun going up against a tank or a machine gun its just not going to do much good.

PDCHARLES

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:59 AM

Quote:

My philosophy on guns is this:

Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

god speak
It is about personal power. Someone threatening you can have the power to take away your life and others you may love. I have no belief system which makes me think this person has that right. You can stay sober and not drive drunk but that doesn’t prevent someone else from plowing into your car after a few martinis. Using tools to protect ourselves is ancient and guns are just another form. We shouldn’t strip ourselves of civil power, it has been done enough.

Quote:

As for the country having an armed Milita, its useless, actually it could be considered a joke and everytime I hear someone make a statement that they need a gun because they might have to protect themselves from the government I laugh, maybe back in the 17 and 1800's that would have worked, but lets say a pistol or a shot gun going up against a tank or a machine gun its just not going to do much good.

and for those FOR banning guns:

“We the people” is right Fremd. If there is truly a need to bear arms and use them against the government. Wouldn’t it be a majority rule situation? Weren’t they imagining the majority of people in the country disagree with the minority that’s in power.

Serious evidence of a tyrannical gov’t would result in public outrage, followed by civil unrest. ...and could possibly be solved without countrymen firing upon one another. But just the government itself. Wouldn’t a gov’t divide into different factions and break apart depending on the degree of tyranny and the number of people involved. How many members of the military do you think are gonna run raids into neighborhoods and execute bombing missions against towns if the majority disagrees. The entire military is not brainwashed. Our military is so privatized citizens have key knowledge of many systems. Yes, third world countries are still having governments run wild in recent times. Well for one, MOST of the citizens don’t have guns…. money, knowledge, and sometimes food. Not the case here.

So... if it was balanced opposition, it would be a civil war. There again a need for personal protection. Say the demos and repubs just started a war for some unknown reason. It seems then in a case of civil war, resources would then divide, maybe unevenly. This includes defense. I highly doubt that neighborhood enthusiasts are gonna have to suit up and defend themselves against tanks. But face-to-face personal confrontations are likely to happen in a multitude of scenarios involving a breakdown of a gov’t. U either have the power or you don’t.

I don’t even want to imagine that ever happening and it IS real hard sitting in AC and on the PC. I just would hate to legislate something that could prevent a future generation from having personal protection.

Now there are possible scenarios for extreme needs for personal firearms. Any major catastrophic natural disaster (pick your favorite) could warrant the need. 10 cases of food 80 people to feed. Etc etc etc……

Oh… I am a liberal and have one gun.

Wha?!?... *sniff sniff* OH.... IM ON FIRE!!!

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 2:25 AM

Quote:
"I thought things were doing pretty well for a while - then Bush decided to (against the advice of just about every agency but the NRA) let assault rifles off the banned list. Since then, I know at least 3 guys (who, though friends, I'd class as gun-fetishists) have bought assault rifles, which were unregistered, and converted them illegaly to fully-automatic. Now, these are guys I trust not to use them dangerously, but if I persoanlly know of 3 people to do this in the span of a few months, I shudder to think of who else might be working on simmilar projects."

***THE ASSAULT RIFLE BAN***

Here's the thing about assault rifles... They weren't banned by the Assault Rifle Ban. Rifles that bear a physical resemblance to certain Assault Rifles were banned from import, and native Rifles that bore a physical resemblance to certain Assault Rifles were required to look less like certain Assault Rifles and have smaller magazines.

I'll stop here to educate the public. ;-) Any semiautomatic weapon can be modified to fire in fully automatic mode by someone who knows what they are doing. This includes ordinary pistols which were NEVER designed for that purpose. You can take a Colt Pistol manufactured in 1911 and modify it to be fully automatic. However, that doesn't make all semiautomatic weapons assault rifles. If you gave a Brady Bill 'assault rifle' to any military organization on the planet and called it an Assault Rifle, you'd get laughed at. As an example of the ludicrousness of the Assault Weapons Ban, look at the Mini-14. The Ruger company makes a rifle called the Mini-14 (and Mini-30) which is frequently used for hunting. But if you change the styling of the stock and put a large magazine on it, it looks more threatening and becomes banned. The common man now thinks of it as an 'Assault Rifle,' some mythical weapon of war designed to smite the masses. A rifle is a rifle. Only a weapon manufactured as a fully automatic rifle can be classed as an Assault Rifle, and only a human being can choose to make any rifle dangerous. 'Scary' appearance and magazine size have nothing to do with it.

The only practical restriction placed by the Assault Rifle Ban was the limit of weapons magazine manufacture and import to magazines with a 10 cartridge capacity. This made sense from the point of view that a maniac with a rifle who opened fire in a public place was limited to killing 10 people before having to reload. Except that maniacs with rifles who open fire in public places have been known to reload, even with high capacity magazines. The limiting factor on armed maniacs in public places is armed non-maniacs in public places.

***THE TRUE NATURE OF GUN CONTROL***

I used to be an advocate of gun control. I used to think that people should have to take classes and pass tests on gun safety before being allowed to own guns. I also used to think that certain guns should be withheld from the public. Fully automatic weapons don't seem necessary for the common citizen (though I can attest to firing legal automatics, and they are a lot of fun to shoot... Just darned expensive.)

But it became clear to me that gun-control advocates were not interested in achieving safe gun use. They were rather interested in eliminating gun use entirely. This forced me to abandon my reasonable position on the subject and stand on the opposite end of the spectrum. A gun safety test could be engineered in such a way as to make it difficult to pass, as opposed to making sure the test-taker knew gun safety. A limit on one type of firearm could begin the slippery slope to banning them all.

If I believed that gun-control advocates wanted to protect my right to be armed, then I would support them. But that is not their interest. They want to 'chip away' at gun ownership until it is impossible to own guns. They want to be sure that only criminals are armed. They cite as a perfect model the United Kingdom, where violent crime is up, but murders are down. A country where it is consider

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE