Skip to comments.
Militia member 'filled with rage,' plotted ambush
The Grand Rapids Press ^
| Friday, October 17, 2003
| Ed White
Posted on 10/17/2003 10:29:17 AM PDT by FourPeas
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 481-497 next last
To: Poohbah
No. You are 'placing words in my mouth'.
In the colonies, your average Joe was expected to be ready to serve, bringing his own gun and ammo ( although provision was made in many places to supply arms who did not have those of their own ) at a moment's notice.
In this manner, an armed force could be called up in a moment's notice ( aka Minutemen ). In the main, this would be infantry.
If you look to the writings of David Kopel, the Founding Fathers may have been impressed by experience, and also the cantons of Switzerland, when the 2nd Amendment was drafted.
If you read further into the Federalist and Anti-Federalist, the common theme is that an armed populace would be a strong deterrent to ursupation.
To: Tench_Coxe
Well, you mentioned "the ultimate" in firepower. I merely extended the analogy to the modern form.
Is there an upper limit on how much destructive force a private citizen should be allowed to have?
My never-humble opinion is that when you can't employ said force in self-defense or the defense of innocents without risking violation of others' rights to the quiet enjoyment of their liberty and property, that's where the 2nd Amendment ends.
162
posted on
10/17/2003 8:50:55 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
To: PhilipFreneau
The 2nd Amendment covers any weapon you need them to fight against a tyrannical government. You must have the expanded version of the 2A. Mine isn't that precise.
To: Poohbah
My opinion, IMHO, is that the citizen should be able to wield the same firepower as the typical infantry soldier. There are other authors that have a similar view.
Strategic weapons have no value if the population turns hostile against those who attempt to usurp authority ( two reasons: 1. Destruction of assets and resources that those attempting to usurp are trying to control, and 2. If said control of strategic weapons falls in 'hostile territory', or with those who sympathize, they are useless to the usurper ).
Crew served weapons are in a grey area. Obviously cannon were crew-served. So were armed sloops. However, the historical record shows that these were also owned by private interests at the time of the Revolution.
To: Poohbah; Texasforever
What?! You mean to say the Constitution is not a suicide pact?! But who's to say that all future generations yet to be born haven't already offered their full and informed consent to have their future society destroyed?!
To: Poohbah
when cannon were considered the ultimate in military firepower, there were private cannon in the colonies.
_____________________________________
OK.
So you're saying that there's a 2nd Amendment right to high-yield strategic nuclear weapons?
No he's saying we have a 2nd amendment right to own cannons..
I have a fully legal unregistered 2" bore muzzle loading antique cannon that I shoot on occasion.
110 duck at one shot is me best score to date .
166
posted on
10/17/2003 9:02:53 PM PDT
by
tpaine
(I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but Arnie won, & politics as usual lost. Yo!)
To: Tench_Coxe
Look. The ONLY "Militia" mentioned in the constitution is the one that is called forward by the Congress. The only "militia" mentioned in state constitutions are the ones called forward by the state governments. This idea that these ad-hoc groups calling themselves "militia" to be used to fight a 2nd revolution are in no way protected by the constitution. The constitutional militia would be called forth to put down these self-styled "freedom fighters". Please stop trying to attribute constitutional meanings to these groups.
To: Poohbah
She your mom poo? -- Bummer.
168
posted on
10/17/2003 9:04:36 PM PDT
by
tpaine
(I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but Arnie won, & politics as usual lost. Yo!)
To: tpaine
I thought she was your father, tpain.
To: tpaine
No he's saying we have a 2nd amendment right to own cannons.. Not so in the sense of a "well regulated" militia. IF the militia is activated the constitution is clear that it is the responsibility of the Congress to train, regulate and EQUIP the militia. If you want to argue the constitution at least read the darn thing.
To: Texasforever
Texasforever wrote: Look. The ONLY "Militia" mentioned in the constitution is the one that is called forward by the Congress. The only "militia" mentioned in state constitutions are the ones called forward by the state governments.
-tex-
So speaks a sunshine patriot that has admitted he is perfectly happy to grant states the power to prohibit arms..
171
posted on
10/17/2003 9:13:23 PM PDT
by
tpaine
(I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but Arnie won, & politics as usual lost. Yo!)
To: Joe Brower
There were chilling pictures of President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with the cross-hairs of a high- (see MILITIA, A4) powered rifle scope drawn over them, Meyer said.Crazy assed Democrat Socialist evidently.....so much for the right wing is nuts rant from the Clintonistas.......:o)
Stay Safe Joe !
172
posted on
10/17/2003 9:14:03 PM PDT
by
Squantos
("Ubi non accusator, ibi non judex.")
To: Squantos
Apparently, the guy was yammering away on shortwave radio how he was going to assassinate Bush.
173
posted on
10/17/2003 9:14:46 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
To: Texasforever
Ah! The Operation TIPS volunteer returns.
Please read the following very slowly for comprehension:
The militia was considered to be all males capable of bearing arms, excepting those whose religion proscribed against such. Such citizens were EXPECTED to bring their own arms when called.
If you want to argue about 'National Guard', I can point you to the reservations in the Federalist about 'select militia'.
To: Squantos; Howlin; Fred Mertz
Crazy assed Democrat Socialist evidently.....so much for the right wing is nuts rant from the Clintonistas.......:o)
Unless it's the Slob School of Advanced Conservative Copy And Paste, which postulates that President Bush is a socialist for not wanting to burn down public schools or nuke a billion peaceful Muslims.
To: Tench_Coxe
Try reading the constitution before you make a bigger fool of yourself. The constitutional militia was concieved to put down the types of "militia" you are describing.
Section 8. The Congress shall have power
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To: MineralMan
That could just be an old .50 cal. De-miled to semi auto you could probably get a couple of hundred rounds a minute out and last I saw they sold em at Traders (kick ass gun store in San Leandro AKA the antichrist to gun haters) for 6000 bucks and the ammo was ~$108 for a belt of 120...
177
posted on
10/17/2003 9:29:13 PM PDT
by
Axenolith
(Contents may have settled during shipping, but this tagline contains the stated product weight.)
To: Texasforever; Bozo
No he's saying we have a 2nd amendment right to own cannons..
Not so in the sense of a "well regulated" militia.,
Not at issue, bozo. My cannon is privately owned ..
IF the militia is activated the constitution is clear that it is the responsibility of the Congress to train, regulate and EQUIP the militia.
Yep, Art I Sec 8.. What's your point?
If you want to argue the constitution at least read the darn thing.
If you want to argue the constitution tex, at least ~try~ to outline a logical issue.. Otherwise, you look like a clown.
178
posted on
10/17/2003 9:29:33 PM PDT
by
tpaine
(I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but Arnie won, & politics as usual lost. Yo!)
To: MineralMan
letter of marque doesn't predicate ownership, it ASSUMES it already exists so it isn't a waste of time to hand them out to the unarmed. You didn't get your letter of marque and then go use it to go pick up cannon...
179
posted on
10/17/2003 9:32:05 PM PDT
by
Axenolith
(Contents may have settled during shipping, but this tagline contains the stated product weight.)
To: tpaine
If you want to argue the constitution tex, at least ~try~ to outline a logical issue.. Otherwise, you look like a clown. Go buy a cannon then but try viagra first. It may be cheaper.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 481-497 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson