Posted on 01/01/2004 5:16:42 PM PST by Sender
O'Reilly: "I believe in the Second Amendment, that includes rifles and handguns, so that people can protect their families..."
"...the vast majority of Americans agree on this (renewing the assault weapon ban)..."
"...when you get into the assault weapons, the big guns, you're out on the fringe."
That turns out not to be the case. Private ownership of cannon armed warships, was aknowledged in the main body of the Constitution, even before the second amendment was ratified, which provides Congress the power to issue letters of Marque. This ammounted to a "hunting license" for enemy shipping. The individuals didn't need the letter to own the cannon, nor the ships, nor to fit the ships with the cannon (although they did sometimes store the cannon until needed, when the ships were otherwise employed). Towns, more properly the militia of towns, and some indivduals did own artillery at the time. All are "arms" which the right of people to keep and bear is protected by the second amendment.
Slavery, odious though it was, was legal under the Constitution. There were likely better ways of ending it, that would have not caused the "hang over" effects that are still with us today. For one thing, the government could have used emminent domain and bought all the slaves from their owners. It would have been cheaper than fighting the war. It would also have avoided the violation of the 4th amendment that merely freeing them by decree entailed. I note that the slaves in Maryland were not freed by the Emancipation Proclemation, which was an executive fiat.
A privateer is not a private army.
Oh, yeah? Who is the Roman Emperor these days? Who sacked Rome? I know they weren't exactly the "Barbarian Hordes", but they were warriors.
It's the use of those things, not the things themselves that cause the harm. Let's concentrate on the people who misuse them, not the things themselves.
What if you have lots of attackers? As in a mob. Many Korean shopkeepers found asault rifles to be just the thing for assuring that their stores weren't burnt to the ground during the "Rodney King" riots.
Nobody "pushes a launch button", both Navy SLBMS and AF ICBMs are launched by turning keys. It takes two people, minimum, who are separated far enough that one person could not turn both keys.
Are you content to make this a pissing contest? That the Roman's failed to maintain their military prowess says nothing to the validity of the principles they established. Most of those principles are still valid to this day, though like camoflage uniforms, they've been incorporated into nearly all modern military organizations.
I always heard that and often wondered why the traders themselves didn't contract the disease since it was pre-vaccination days. Or did they and we just weren't told about it? And if we weren't then why weren't we?
The CDC was non-existant back then and there was very little known about infectious diseases so it would not surprise me in the least to find out that the old stories about "smallpox laden blankents" are nothing but history re-written to cast false aspersions on the white people.........
Oh yes they were, quite as good as anybody's in the area. They were quite good at amphibious operations too.
Never said it was, but it was about as close to an "ultimate weapon" as existed at the time. Much more destructive than a company of militia (sans cannon of course, which many companies of militia *did* own) Organizeed militias were not private armies either, but in most cases not all that far from it.
So why does the gov't want to take them away if they don't pose any threat to them?
I don't disagree, but the dichotomy between soldier and warrior is a false one, IMHO. Back in the mid 80s, when I was still active in the AF Reserve, the AF, feeling that the military had become just another job for most members, had something called "Project Warrior", (I was the project Warrior OIC for my detachment) and I believe the Army had something similar. A soldier, (and the others too) needs to be a warrior. Of course there is more to being a warrior than merely having the warrior spirit. That is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an effective soldier, sailor, Marine or airman. Our military is organized along lines similar to those of the Romans. Strong NCOs and "remote" (in the sense of approachability not physical presence) officers being a very important component of that structure.
That said there are variations, and some modern militaries have had a nearly non-existance NCO corps. The Soviets for example, yet they managed pretty well against the Nazies and were of some concern to the US afterwards.
The 2nd amendment applies to an individual Right, and therefore covers all individual arms, not crew-served weapons.
Nukes, tanks, battleships, etc.... are crew-served, and therefore not covered by an amendment which recognizes the Right of individuals to bear arms.
You can always make the argument that weapons that were invented after the amendment was written are not protected by it.
Does that apply to other amendments in the Bill of Rights also?
So now, the first amendment doesn't cover email, television or radio?
The 4th amendment doesn't cover private automobiles?
The 8th amendment doesn't protect against again "cruel and unusual" punishments invented since then?
Such an argument is not only absurd, but totally contrary to the meaning of the Bill of Rights.
The 2/3 only applied to slaves, not to "non-whites" in general. "Mexicans" and (actually Tejanoes) and free blacks, were fully counted. Actually it would have been better if slaves weren't counted at all, since counting them resulted in over representation of the slave states in the US House.
It didn't have to take a war to change that situation. A consitutional amendment would have served as well, and been a whole lot cheaper too. Now, the southern states *might* have seceded if such an amendment were passed, but that would have meant that slavery remained legal in the Confederacy but not the Union, but would not have changed the economics of it. It would likely have died of it's own weight by the 1890s or so, if not sooner. Slaves were expensive, $1000+ in "then year" dollars was not unheard of, and expensive to maintain. Irishmen were much cheaper for most any job. Chinese were slightly cheaper still, and it one died on you, there was another stepping off the boat to take his place.
That's exactly why the "domestic enemies of the Constitution" keep referring to it as a living document.
They know they will NEVER get the ~70% support required for a Constitutional amendment to implement their statist agenda, so they invented the concept of a "living Constitution" so that corrupt judges would illegally validate it when a mere 51% voted to enact some tyrannical legislation.
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.