The history of 2nd ammendment
This is a discussion on The history of 2nd ammendment within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by peckman28
It's quite clearly written, actually. It's certainly no less clear than any of the other BoR amendments, and really some others ...
December 9th, 2012 02:33 PM
Interesting, but the privateers were sanctioned by government and not simply off doing their own thing--- unless in their prior
Originally Posted by peckman28
lives they were pirates. They didn't operate without authorization from DC.
From Wiki-- "A privateer is a private person or ship authorized by a government by letters of marque to attack foreign shipping during wartime." Privateer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, that really has nothing to do with 2A. If anything it bolsters the counter argument that government authorization is in
fact needed for military styles weaponry.
If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
December 9th, 2012 02:53 PM
Authorized to attack a foreign navy during a period of war, yes. The authorization did not pertain to their possession of said vessels of war. Your argument quickly falls on its face if that's the track you're taking. Letters of Marque and Reprisal are in the Constitution because of the existence of such privately owned vessels, not to magically authorize them into existence.
Back to relatively cheaper matters, the army had muskets, and the people had muskets and some even had fancy new weapons with greater range and accuracy. They were called "rifles". Some people even had cannons, obviously the artillery of the day. If you want a full-auto M16, M4, grenade launcher (with grenades), whatever, there is no reason whatsoever that you should not be allowed to have it. There is no historical evidence that the founders would have endorsed anything like Class III, NFA registration or any of this other idiotic nonsense. There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that authorizes such schemes, or even allows something like the ATF to exist. The 10A, which is completely disregarded these days, expressly prohibits the federal government from doing anything the Constitution doesn't spell out for it. If the cops and military can have it, YOU absolutely should be able to have it. There is no authority to change the meaning to "not unduly infringed" or any other imaginary crap.
December 9th, 2012 02:54 PM
The first three objectives for Obama to complete his change to socialism was to: make the masses dependent on the government(42M presently on welfare and growing), remove all means of resistance from the masses(UN weapons treaty, stacked the Supreme Court Judges) have an organized strong armed civilian force(TSA, ICE, FEMA, BATF to name just a few) two of these objectives have been met, guns are next. After he has these objectives in place the rest will be easy. the "Big O" is taking us down the same path as Hitler did in Germany.
December 9th, 2012 06:51 PM
I hear lock keys tinkling.
Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon at large. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid...
Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth
December 9th, 2012 10:57 PM
To my knowledge nobody has suggested the 2A justifies rebellion and insurrection, nor have I read such a thing. Even the most-accommodating reading of the 2A doesn't say that.
Originally Posted by Hopyard
Originally Posted by peckman28
Search tags for this page
2nd ammendment roots in english common law
a history of 2nd ammendment regulations
discourse on the 2nd ammendment of the u.s. constitution, original framers
discussion about 2nd amendment 1780
trace ammendment 10 to magna carta
what british actions led to the 2nd ammendment
Click on a term to search for related topics.