The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers ... which was created in 1903, 112 years later.

Christian news in maine.com ^ | 18January, 2004 | Larry Austin

[newsgatherer]

Handgun Control Inc. says it wants to keep handguns out of the hands of the wrong people. Guess what. If you are a law abiding citizen who owns a handgun you have the "wrong hands."

Banning guns works. That is why New York and Chicago have such high murder rates.

Washington D.C. which has strict gun controls has a murder rate of 69 per 100,000. Indianapolis, without them has an awesome murder rate of 9 per 100,000. Gun control works.

You can incapacitate an intruder with tear gas or oven spray. If you shoot him with a .357 he will get angry and kill you.

A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman standing with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

The "New England Journal of Medicine" has some excellent articles on gun control just as "The American Rifleman" carries equally great articles on open-heart surgery.

The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard which was created in 1903, 112 years later.

The "right of the people peaceably to assemble" and "the right of the people to be secure in their homes" refers to individuals while "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

One should consult an automobile technician for vehicle repairs, a computer programmer for problems with your hard drive and Sara Brady for firearms expertise.

Most citizens cannot be trusted so we need firearms laws because we can trust citizens to abide by them.

If you are not familiar with most of the above you have not been following the firearms debate. In fact you haven't tuned in to the liberals who still have their hands in your pockets and on your firearms even though the pounding defeats ...

[jimthewiz]

Those warships and cannon were not explicitly protected by the Constitution though as were arms.

If they were not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, they are covered under:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[LexBaird]

There is not a scintilla of evidence that any arm greater than a individual arm was ever considered as an arm to be kept or provided by an individual militia member.

Look up the references to Letters of Marque and Reprisal in the Constitution. I'd say that is a pretty heavy indication of cannon in private citizen's hands.

[justshutupandtakeit]

If you believe throwing insults and irrelevent quotations is "handing me my head" then you do not know much about logic.

Nor have I taken my opinions from any particular sources outside the Constitution itself and the history of the era.

If you want to insult those who do not believe the 2d amendment means "the right of the people to keep and bear ANY DAMN WEAPON they want" then go right ahead. I do NOT believe that is what it means.

[justshutupandtakeit]

STuff too many more of these "rights" into the tenth and it will explode causing great damage and destruction.

[TChris]

Hard to argue with that logic...

Not really. Its quite reasonable to have some limitation in this regard, as the original authors of the 2nd Amendment obviously did not forsee the advent of WMDs. I think its safe to say those ought not to be available to common citizens. There are other classes of weapons that probably fall into this category as well. 12-inch naval destroyer guns come to mind.

The right to self defence is undeniable, but the right to match the nation's military for arms is ludicrous. Do you really want Bubba in the trailer park, who is downing a case of Pabst while nursing a grudge with the neighbor who keyed the paint on his 1978 Camaro, stroking the Big Red Button on the briefcase nuke sitting next to his La-Z-Boy? I don't think so.

[Dead Corpse]

I do NOT believe that is what it means.

That, is obvious. I've had you pegged as a gun banner from the start. Nice of you to finally step up, be a man, and admit it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Do you have a book of irrelevent quotes to fall back on when you are hopelessly confused?

[justshutupandtakeit]

It is well known that in a contest between worms and a dead corpse the worms win easily.

[King Prout]

thanks.

check out post#108.

that really does settle the matter of Letters of Marque.

some would persist in arguing against the notion that private citizens have the right to own cannon, battleships, etc... in spite of this hard, cold evidence.

*shrugging*

one can lead a DUmmie to data...

[Triple]

"Be it known that in pursuance of an act of congress passed on the fifth day of June one thousand eight hundred and twelve, I have commissioned, and by these presents do commission, the private armed Schooner called the (Vessel's Name) Lucy of the burden of twenty-five tons, or thereabouts, owned by (Owners’ Name) John Lawton in the city of (City) Taunton state of (State) Massachusetts mounting four carriage guns, and navigated by twenty-six men, hereby authorizing (captain’s name) John Lawton Captain, and (Lieutenant’s Name) Perez Drinkwater Lieutenant of the said (Vessel’s Name) Lucy and the other officers and crew thereof to: Subdue, seize and take any armed of unarmed British vessel, public or private, which shall be found within the jurisdictional limits of the United States or elsewhere on the high seas, or within the waters of the British dominions." (Cont.) - actual letter of marque for the Lucy, circa 1812

[Triple]

"Be it known that in pursuance of an act of congress passed on the fifth day of June one thousand eight hundred and twelve, I have commissioned, and by these presents do commission, the private armed Schooner called the (Vessel's Name) Lucy of the burden of twenty-five tons, or thereabouts, owned by (Owners’ Name) John Lawton in the city of (City) Taunton state of (State) Massachusetts mounting four carriage guns, and navigated by twenty-six men, hereby authorizing (captain’s name) John Lawton Captain, and (Lieutenant’s Name) Perez Drinkwater Lieutenant of the said (Vessel’s Name) Lucy and the other officers and crew thereof to: Subdue, seize and take any armed of unarmed British vessel, public or private, which shall be found within the jurisdictional limits of the United States or elsewhere on the high seas, or within the waters of the British dominions." (Cont.) - actual letter of marque for the Lucy, circa 1812

[Dead Corpse]

Stupid argument. Bubba living in a trailer park would never be able to afford a nuke.

Not that the thought of Bill Gates having ICBM's necessarily makes me feel too much better. At least he'd be balanced by Steve Jobs.

In fact, some of Bush's supposed "Texas Oil Buddies" could have saved us a lot of trouble by using THIER nukes to whipe out the Middle East solving a lot of our problems...

You've convinced me, when can I take out a second and third mortgage to buy my own nuke!

[Dead Corpse]

Irrelevent? Only in your own little fantasy world. Or are quotes directly from those who WROTE THE AMENDMENT and were there when the Constitution was signed, just too much for you?

[Dead Corpse]

And even worms die. Now follow your own screen names advise before your boss Mr. Moore comes and takes your lunch away again...

[The KG9 Kid]

"... "Arms" are weapons which a man could carry. Firearms are those which use gunpowder and can be carried. Those claiming that the amendment allows possession of any and all weapons are guilty of reading into the document those things they wish."

If that's the case, how can we then explain the relevant passage in the US Constitution which allows for Congress to write out 'Letters of Marque' -- presumably to private citizens who owned seagoing cutters and pinnaces loaded with cannon?

This wouldn't apply to US Navy ships, considering that the US Constitution compels Congress to fund the US Navy.

If not the Navy, then who did the Framers intend for it to apply to?

[ExSoldier]

I'm a history teacher. I have to admit, the US Government has broken nearly ALL the treaties we have ever made with the various native American tribes. We waged germ warfare against them (possibly the first such use in combat) and we stole their land.

But OTOH, in waging war against the white man, the Indians were unspeakably barbaric to prisoners. My best friend is half Apache and a retired airborne ranger. He is also a history teacher. During our many conversations on the topic he enlightened me as to the methods employed by his ancestors against settlers and their women and children. Sounds a lot like the Jihadis to me.

Ultimate Red man's revenge: if you live on the reservation, you pay no federal income taxes AND you get to build multimillion dollar casinos that directly benefit the tribe. You also get your own police force and the right to ticket ANYBODY passing through reservation territory. Another revenue producing enterprise that isn't taxed.

[jimthewiz]

STuff too many more of these "rights" into the tenth and it will explode causing great damage and destruction.

In your obviously twisted mind, this has some relevant meaning. However, the Constitution does not give rights to the people, it limits the Government's rights.

I will not try to confuse you with any more facts, since your mind is made up and your logic may implode.

[The KG9 Kid]

Looks like you fellows beat me to the point. I defer.

Thank you.

[Centurion2000]

Those claiming that the amendment allows possession of any and all weapons are guilty of reading into the document those things they wish.

Then be so kind as to explain privateers in 1780's and why they did not have the right to own cannon, frigates and ships ?

[meatloaf]

Believe it or not quite a few folks own cannons ... legally.