The history of 2nd ammendment - Page 3

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 ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 35 of 35
Like Tree37Likes

Thread: The history of 2nd ammendment

  1. #31
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,059
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    It's quite clearly written, actually. It's certainly no less clear than any of the other BoR amendments, and really some others are probably less clear, as the "takings clause" shows us. What the modern "interpretations" boil down to is statists trying to twist it into something that they wish it to mean, rather than what the clear English it is written in actually says. It forbids federal gun control, plain and simple. There is abundant evidence that the founding fathers intended for the people to be as well-armed as the army, and in many cases people were better armed. The argument that there shouldn't be things like machine guns and grenade launchers for civilians now is completely false to anyone objectively studying history; particularly those who look at the successes that privately owned warships saw against the British Navy during the War of 1812.
    Interesting, but the privateers were sanctioned by government and not simply off doing their own thing--- unless in their prior
    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.
    Andrew Jackson


  2. #32
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,108
    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.

  3. #33
    Distinguished Member Array chuckusaret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    SE Florida
    Posts
    1,627
    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.
    US Army 1953-1977

    ‘‘We, the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.’’
    — Abraham Lincoln

  4. #34
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hiding inside a bottle of Jim Beam Black.
    Posts
    17,577
    I hear lock keys tinkling.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  5. #35
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    That is a far cry from what many participants here seem to believe occurred or seem to think 2A allows for.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    There is mention in several places of the Federalist Papers that the government cannot become tyrannical because the populace is better armed than the army is. It's in there, and no amount of fantasizing about what was written back then changes it.
    Exactly.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

2nd ammendment
,
a history of 2nd ammendment regulations
,

discourse on the 2nd ammendment of the u.s. constitution, original framers

,
discussion about 2nd amendment 1780
,
second amendment
,
trace ammendment 10 to magna carta
,
what british actions led to the 2nd ammendment
Click on a term to search for related topics.