Posted on 07/25/2012 9:56:20 AM PDT by DCBryan1
Another moron who can't be bothered to do the simplest research before whining.
Well, the distinction between "civilian" and "military" weapons is just a bunch of argle-bargle and a barrel of red herrings, anyway.
The only real point in dispute is the equity point, viz., that liberals demand a monopoly of force located in their own hands. Period. They need to go eff themselves, "forcefully".
And btw, Miller needs to be taken down as a juridical bagatelle, a constitutional and procedural horror show engineered, like so many other things, by Franklin Roosevelt, who was no friend either of the Constitution or of the People.
Judy Judy Judy
Why don’t they just pass a law Making Mass Murder Against the Law?
Bad People do Bad Things, you are not going to stop the Psycho Nut from starting his plan, BUTT not having a gun will delay stopping the Psycho Nut.
My fantasy is for the Judith Millers of the world to STFU.
We also armed ourselves with cannon taken by force from the government controlled Fort Ticonderoga. These cannon were dragged across the snowy countryside and arranged overnight on the heights above Boston and caused the immediate evacuation of the government's military forces occupying Boston.
I would encourage you to word this differently so that you don't confuse the ignorant.
When Paul Revere rode through the countryside, he didn't yell, "The British are coming", he yelled, "The Regulars are coming". By this he meant the "Regular Army" which was commanded by the legitimate central government over the colonies.
Those colonial governments which supported the Militia in their opposition to the Regular Army were in rebellion against the legitimate source of their own governance, their royal charters. Prior to the Declaration of Independence there was no "U.S. Army". The colonists were at war with their own government and all of them engaged in this rebellion were subject to hanging for treason.
Only the proper perspective regarding the rebellious nature of the American Revolution permits a full understanding of the scope of the Second Amendment.
While this was the decision in the Supreme Court's 1939 Miller decision, I don't think the Heller decision is consistent with that narrow reading.
The Heller Court adopted the "in common use" language but also established that the right to keep and bear arms pre-existed the Second Amendment and that the right to defend one's self in the home is part of the pre-existing right. By implication, there would be no reason to insist on a militia purpose for arms suitable for self-defense in the home.
Protecting one's hearing by the use of a "silencer" on a home self-defense weapon ought to be protected by the Second Amendment as well as the use of a short-barreled shotgun.
“If everyone was a helpless head in a jar, then no one would be able to murder anyone...”
Best and most succinct post I have seen as a response to the tyrants!
No it doesn't.
If if did, it would read "The People have the right to ...".
That's not what it says.
It starts off "Congress shall make no law...".
It doesn't grant rights, it protects rights.
Whenever I talk to a libtard about guns, I just ask “hey- why don’t we just make it illegal to kill people”
(sometimes you can see actual smoke coming out of their ears)
Yes, you are correct. mea culpa.
Say what you will about this article, I think it’s great when the LIEberals rip the mask off once in a while.
Judith, will passing another law against rape stop it?
These people are simply not rational.
Judith, will passing another law against rape stop it?
These people are simply not rational.
“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?”
I must respectfully disagree. The term “Rifle” implies rifling. Some units during the revolutionary war used “rifles”, but these were for “sharpshooters” (snipers).
“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.”
By the civil war the “rifle musket” was the standard military firearm. The Minnie Ball made this possible, plus increased the range and accuracy of the weapon....with devasting effects against military personel still using Revolutionary/Napoleonic style attackes. By removing the rifling, you rendered a musket (in the post civil war era) no longer suitable for military use. Actually, I don’t think you have your facts correct here either though. Most civil war rifle muskets were modified to make them breach loaders using cartridge. Many of the modified arms were given to states for their militias.
Whatever that doesn’t change the point that the term “bear arms” refered to military weaponry. In revolutionary times these were primarily smoothbores. This changed with time.
BTW = Please correct me if I have misread you, but you seem to be taking an anti-2nd Ammendment viewpoint that military style firearms are guaranteed for possesion by individual citizens.
If you take an anti-2nd ammendment view...it is not welcome on this forum and will get you zotted.
Crud - my proofreading is aweful: Make that
“but it’s about OUR rights, all of our rights”
not “out rights”
***I must respectfully disagree. The term “Rifle” implies rifling.***
I agree with you. Rifles were used by some units. Those we call Kentucky Rifles are rifles, but some were smoothbores. I used to have an article on those smooth bore firearms and from the outside they looked just like a fancy rifle.
George Washington had a preference for smooth bore muskets because they could be loaded fast and they had a lug for a bayonet.
After civil war, many rifled muskets were sold to Bannerman’s where they were demilled by having the rifling removed and the bayonet lug ground off, then sold to the public. the reason was a farmer had more use for a shotgun than a solid ball rifle. I had the pleasure of holding one of those in my hand about 50 years ago.
The BRITISH took their .577 muskets and converted them to breach loaders using the Snider patent. The US army chose the 50/70 cartridge and it does not fit any .58 US or confederate .577 musket.
After the Civil War, the US army in the west received breach loading rifles. Some posts gave them to settlers heading west as they felt the settlers needed them more than the army at that time as the settlers were going into Indian Country.
US .50/70 breach loading rifles could be sold to the public as hunting rifles. Many traders bought them and traded with the Indians as the Indians loved that “needle gun” for buffalo hunts.
In the 1920s the US arsenals made the 1903 rifle for the US army. They also made a sporting version and sold it to the public but were forced to stop as they were cutting into the business of Remmington, Winchester and Savage. This is also the real reason why certain members of the Congress hated army surplus rifles in the 1960s.
I have been pro-SECOND AMMENDMENT since before that travesty the 1968 gun control act became law, and I am pro- now having owned more guns that would make a lib loose bladder control than you a even think of.
“I have been pro-SECOND AMMENDMENT since before that travesty the 1968 gun control act became law, and I am pro- now having owned more guns that would make a lib loose bladder control than you a even think of.”
Yeah, after I posted I looked at your profile and realized I had misread you. Sorry about that and thanks for the clarification. I have been a NRA member over 20 years...I signed up just before Clinton was elected. Most of my information comes from reading history acticles in the American Rifleman. Looks like I need to go back and read about the post civil war era again. I know that the development of cartridge ammunition made many “union” rifle muskets obsolete. I thought many were converted to breach loading cartridge. My memory of the article is obviously faulty.
Whatever, again my apologies for mischaracterizing you. :-)
Found an interesting NRA article about a conversion done on the 1861 Springfield Rifle Musket after the war:
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.