Judith Miller - My Real Gun Control Fantasy
Posted on 07/25/2012 9:56:20 AM PDT by DCBryan1
When are people on the left finally going to realize that the language of the 2nd Ammendment is clear in regards to what it was speaking about. The term used was “Arms.” This specifically implies military weaponry suitable for militia use.
The skirmish of 1775 at Lexington & Concord was when the British Army sent troops with the specific purpose to take away “arms” held by the colonists. What they were attempting to seize were “muskets.” At that time a “musket” was a smooth bore weapon that only had ONE use, and that was military. Because it was smoothbore it could be rapidly loaded and fired, but it was very inaccurate. That is why opposing armies lined up to fire at each other at close range.
A “musket” had NO civilian use. In fact civilians used “rifles” that were not smoothbore. A rifle has spiral groves in it that cause the bullet to rotate (like a thrown football) giving it accuracy. A rifle was suitable was hunting and not practical as a weapon because it could not be rapidly loaded, and after a few shots became so fouled with powder it could no longer be loaded without cleaning first.
The point is that a “rifle” was not a “military weapon” at that time and, by the tactics of the day, pretty much useless for conventional warfare. Whereas a “musket” was useless for hunting, and it only served to be used as a “military weapon.”
Now knowing that the drafters of the constitution were reacting to things they suffered under British rule. One can easily realize that when they wrote “right to keep and bear arms” they WERE refering to military type weapons...not hunting equipment.
Also, since a rationale provided in the ammendment, “A well regulated militia...” for this right (both an individual and collective one), it is extremely clear they were talking about weapons of warfare. The ONLY potential (I say potential because I don’t want to argue hardcase) restriction that could be “implied” was that the “arms” would be that suitable for an individual soldier. Therefore, an M16 type weapon would be protected, but I don’t think a howitzer (for individual use) would be...I don’t argue with folks about this because it causes too much discord.
The KEY to me is that an individual is guaranteed the right to keep and bear “military type” arms consistent with the military of the day. The purposes being for individual protection and when called upon by constitutionally allowed or mandated authority, for protection of community, state, & country.
THEY DO NOT CARE.
They are pushing a narrative for their mindless sheep to swallow and regurgitate. Very little chance that any of their sycophants will ever entertain an individual thought of their ow and possibly jeopardize their handouts and freebies.
They want us out of the way so they can take complete control and this is a major stumbling block for them. They can try and pass anything they want...
I WILL NOT COMPLY.
BTW, I sent a “pithier” comment like that to O’Reilly. We’ll see if he has the guts to run it.
Hey Judith!
How many Aurora victims were killed or wounded with buckshot from the Remington 870, pump-action shotgun, vs. the number killed or wounded from AR rounds?
Hint: The AR was the second weapon used, and jammed early.
That’s the whole PROBLEM with liberals, Judith. You live in a DREAM WORLD where passing a law is presumed to solve the problem- whatever it may be. This makes it easy to go on your self-righteous way believing you have dealt with the issue of madmen with guns. Except you haven’t- you are not able to do so because it cannot be done.
Psssttt...since there have been weapons there have always been lunatics who on occasion go on murdering rampages killing people. This is part of the human condition lady and you can’t legislate it away. It’s awful and it’s shocking and there isn’t one damn law you can pass to change it.
My advice to you- go listen to the tape from MSNBC yesterday with the brother of one of the dead from Aurora. He’s an adult with an attitude of maturity you’d do well to emulate.
Interestingly, she lists the Kennedy assassination as an example of mass shootings. What a weirdo.
Dear libtard Judith,
Without the 2nd ammendment, you lose the 1st ammendment. Without those willing to protect their God given rights, you would not have the right to spew your garbage in a “free press.”
Idiots...
As Krauthammer recently pointed out, the problem the left faces is that the “gun lobby” is the American people. And Americans won’t accept another “assault weapons” ban.
If they want a civil war, they can push a law through—like Obama’s fiat amnesty for illegals or his `Affordable Health Care’— and they can point the way, and we will point the guns.
It may be coming anyway but that would do it.
Now why don't you go make yourself useful and write about your fantasy involving a Shetland pony and a German Shepard.
” ...you might notice it is “the right to bear arms” - not “own guns”
KC - I’m no lawyer but I take “keep” to mean “own”.
“A well regulated militia...”
LR - You have a point. What other arms would a citizen militia need but those that are suitable for combat?
Ironically, as I recall, the case making that distinction is referred to as “Miller”.
Mizz Miller
I read a small portion of your fantastical screed before I came to the conclusion you are in a world of bubble-gum songs, daffodil skies, and sunshine all the day.
Here in the REAL world, it’s not so simple, and it never has been. The 2nd Amendment, which you seem to think should be limited, Let’s see if you can understand a basic reason that the Founders (those EVIL WHIT E MEN) thoughtfully and deliberately added this amendment.
You’ll notice that it’s the 2nd Amendment for a reason: The 1st Amendment grants you the Right to Speak, to Worship (or not) as you wish, to disallow the Gov’t from aligning itself with any 1 religion (but to respect them nonetheless), to assemble peaceably, and to complain to or about the government without fear of punishment or reprisals.
The founders knew from experience that these are the most important needs for a free people to survive. However, they also know from bitter experience that you need to back up these rights by being on an equal footing with that same government. And If the Government is armed, it’s people must be armed as well. THAT is the basis of the 2nd amendment. NOt to only protect oneself and property from criminals, but more importantly, from the Government.
And even if we are so well armed with AK-47’s and M1 Garands, AR-15’s, rifles, hand-guns, derringers, in truth we are still outgunned by .50 cal machine guns and Tanks and Helicopter Gunships.
Now personally, while I don’t see a need for me to own such larger weapons with greater firepower, others do, and I shall not prevent them from arming themselves accordingly.
Pity this is all going over your empty head. But maybe if you’d still consider 1 thing, you’ll understand our position: When a people cannot fight back against government, they become slaves, their every action scrutinized, their every word examined, and their very freedoms and fortunes are forfeit, including yours.
KC - I’m no lawyer but I take “keep” to mean “own”.
____________________________
Of course you are correct. Judith Miller though, has it wrong. ;>)
“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”
Judith Miller - My Real Gun Control Fantasy
“This specifically implies...”
Now there’s a contradiction in terms if ever I saw one.
Bad example Judith! As those “4 ex-Presidents” walk away after the speech,surrounded by their ARMED bodyguards.
Cue Alanis Morrisette. That was the one thing United States vs Miller did rule.
***The Kentucky long rifle and the flintlock are also military style weapons.***
Up until 1932 civilians always had better firearms than the military.
Judy Miller got fired from the NYT for writing non-PC articles about the Iraq War (she was an embed and naively wrote some things that were true, and just waaaay too positive about the allied armed forces), but she still can't figure out who her friends are.
***At that time a “musket” was a smooth bore weapon that only had ONE use, and that was military.***
Not so. They were also used as shotguns by militia members. Many of the Kentucky style “rifles” were actually smoothbores. Does that make them a “military style” firearm?
After the Civil War many rifled muskets were de-milled by reaming out the rifling and grinding off the bayonet lug. They were then given or sold to the public, after all, they were PUBLIC PROPERTY.
In the west, the army received shipments of new breach loading rifles. Instead of issuing these to the troops, the commanders ordered them to be given to the settlers heading west as they needed them more than a muzzle loader.
Dang! What you can learn from 50 years of haunting libraries where they have REAL BOOKS!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
