To: Greystoke
The example that Scalia cited was a hand canon. I think that a law forbidding the ownership of a M72 Laws rocket would probably meet the constitutionality test. People need to understand the context.
9 posted on
07/29/2012 8:15:24 AM PDT by
Perdogg
(Let's leave reading things in the Constitution that aren't there to liberals and Dems)
To: Perdogg
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and
every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
The founders wouldn't agree with you.
/johnny
To: Perdogg
What the press and scalia were referring to as “Assault Weapons” are semi auto weapons that are legal and had better remain so. I am sick of our government and disappointed in those that are so quick to make excuses for them.
LLS
15 posted on
07/29/2012 8:20:06 AM PDT by
LibLieSlayer
(Don't Tread On Me)
To: Perdogg
28 posted on
07/29/2012 8:37:07 AM PDT by
wally_bert
(It's sheer elegance in its simplicity! - The Middleman)
To: Perdogg
As a practical matter the Founders lived in a time when the private individuals owned the big guns as well ~ Tony's memory doesn't quite go back that far, but even in Italy his (surviving ancestors) were probably mercenaries with vast arrays of privately owned cannon of all sorts.
People who didn't have such weapons didn't survive to have modern descendants.
30 posted on
07/29/2012 8:39:56 AM PDT by
muawiyah
To: Perdogg
Personally, I believe in citizen ownership of any weapon the military uses. A M72 isn’t going to take out an Abrams, and if the government decides to use tanks on citizens, I want to be able to take out an Abrams.
We need constitutional carry in every state ... open and concealed.
Fully automatic weapons should not require a license.
Silencers/surpressors should not require registration and a $200 tax.
Short barrel rifles should not require a license.
To: Perdogg
The example that Scalia cited was a hand canon. I think that a law forbidding the ownership of a M72 Laws rocket would probably meet the constitutionality test. People need to understand the context.Absolutely incorrect.
The Second Amendment explicitly states 'arms', as opposed to firearms. A Laws rocket would fall under the 'arms' category, which is protected by the Second Amendment.
116 posted on
07/29/2012 12:51:20 PM PDT by
wastedyears
("God? I didn't know he was signed onto the system.")
To: Perdogg
The example that Scalia cited was a hand canon. I think that a law forbidding the ownership of a M72 Laws rocket would probably meet the constitutionality test. People need to understand the context. The 2nd Amendment is there so the people can combat the tyranny of an oppressive government. In order to do that, that means the citizenry should be able to own military hardware if they so choose.
Which is why it says "arms" instead of "bayonets and muskets" and that whole "shall not be infringed" part is there.
146 posted on
07/29/2012 5:36:46 PM PDT by
Repeat Offender
(While the wicked stand confounded, call me with Thy Saints surrounded.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson