Posted on 01/18/2005 11:25:23 AM PST by 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 ...
(Excerpt) Read more at Christian-news-in-maine.com ...
“The 2nd Amendment, having no limitation upon what constitutes "arms", clearly indicates the gov't has no such right”
No, but the debates surrounding the ratification of the amendment as well as the actual wording of the Militia Act do serve to provide an insight into the intent of the founders. Now take that and EVERY major court decision all saying the same thing and you have what the Constitution currently means. Remember, it matters not what WE want. What matters is what the imperial courts want.
All you have to consider is campaign finance regulation to know that the courts cand and do change “Congress shall make NO law…” into “Congress shall do whatever the court approves”
“Either produce an early law or Founding Fathers quote indicating the word "arms" specifically excludes larger-than-individual weapons, or you have no basis for your argument. Remember: several Founding Fathers owned their own cannons; did they somehow violate their own laws?”
You confuse owning something with having a constitutional right to own something.
Of course you are. You gun grabbers are all alike.
Impeach them. Failing that. Remove them by force of arms. I'm getting tired of trying to work within a rigged system and I'm not Ghandi.
Indeed, an interesting find.
Two relevant factors though:
1. Nothing prohibited ownership of the indicated arms. Using them, or acting in a manner which may lead to their use, was restrained ... but simply owning the stuff was not.
2. Setting out with those arms was permitted given adequate bond; pay up and you can go, come back having not caused trouble and you get your money back.
While very interesting and relevant, it does not adequately support the limited interpretation of "arms" view.
Great post, and much appreciated.
WHEREAS the regency of Tripoli, on the coast of Barbary, has commenced a predatory warfare against the United States:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, that it shall be lawful fully to equip, officer, man, and employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may be judged requisite by the President of the United States, for protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the Atlantic ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas.
SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to instruct the commanders of the respective public vessels aforesaid, to subdue, seize and make prize of all vessels, goods and effects, belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, or to his subjects, and to bring or send the same into port, to be proceeded against, and distributed according to law; and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify, and may, in his opinion, require.
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That on the application of the owners of private armed vessels of the United States, the President of the United States may grant to them special commissions, in the form which he shall direct, under the seal of the United States; and such private armed vessels, when so commissioned, shall have the like authority for subduing, seizing, taking, and bringing into port, any Tripolitan vessel, goods or effects, as the before-mentioned public armed vessels may by law have; and shall therein be subject to the instructions which may be given by the President of the United States for the regulation of their conduct; and their commissions shall be revocable at his pleasure. Provided, that before any commission shall be granted, as aforesaid, the owner or owners of the vessel for which the same may be requested, and the commander thereof, for the time being, shall give bond to the United States, with at least two responsible sureties, not interested in such vessel, in the penal sum of seven thousand dollars; or, if such vessel be provided with more than one hundred and fifty men, in the penal sum of fourteen thousand dollars, with condition for observing the treaties and laws of the United States, and the instructions which may be given, as aforesaid; and also, for satisfying all damages and injuries which shall be done, contrary to the tenor thereof, by such commissioned vessel; and for delivering up the commission, when revoked by the President of the United States.
SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That any Tripolitan vessel, goods or effects, which shall be so captured and brought into port by any private armed vessel of the United States, duly commissioned, as aforesaid, may be adjudged good prize, and thereupon shall accrue to the owners and officers, and men of the capturing vessel, and shall be distributed according to the agreement which shall have been made between them, or, in failure of such agreement, according to the discretion of the court having cognizance of the capture.
SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That the seamen may be engaged to serve in the navy of the United States for a period not exceeding two years; but the President may discharge the same sooner, if in his judgment, their services may be dispensed with.
APPROVED, February 6, 1802.
The power the federal government had to regulate them beyond any conception we would have for their power to regulate "arms" under the Second Amendment is what struck me.
It doesn't show any concern about infringing the right to bear them.
The power the federal government had to regulate them beyond any conception we would have for their power to regulate "arms" under the Second Amendment is what struck me.
It doesn't show any concern about infringing the right to bear them.
“You make my point: nothing explicitly or implicitly granted the gov't the power to restrict ownership of large arms. The Constitution was written on the premise that people have natural rights, and the government may only do what the Constitution explicitly grants the government the power to do. As there is no prohibition of owning any class of arms (individual or crew-served), and to the contrary "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", you can own a cannon.”
You and I both know that this caveat has nor in any way restrained our government in over 200 years. You speak theory and personal desire while I speak of the state of the law and reality. In reality, unless the Constitution specifically prohibits something and the courts allow the prohibition, your distinction simply does not matter. Sorry.
“Here's a clue: you can own a cannon. Right now. No paperwork, no permission needed. No kidding.”
Try it and see how far your “right” takes you.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, during the present war with Great Britain, it shall be lawful for any person or persons to burn, sink, or destroy, any British armed vessel of war, except vessels coming as cartels or flags of truce; and for that purpose to use torpedoes, submarine instruments, or any other destructive machine whatever: and a bounty of one half the value of the armed vessel so burnt, sunk, or destroyed, and also one half the value of her guns, cargo, tackle, and apparel, shall be paid out of the treasury of the United States to such person or persons who shall effect the same, otherwise than by the armed or commissioned vessels of the United States.
APPROVED MARCH 3, 1813
Learn the difference between regulating under Constitutional War Powers and the infringements we've had to put up with the last 100 years. Until that seeps in to that regolithic cranium of yours, I'm done with you...
But OTOH that's a good point to draw the line anyway isn't it?
'tis plainly stated in the 2nd Amendment. If you won't accept the plain meaning, nothing further can be discussed.
To have a free state, security must be provided.
To have security, there must be a well-regulated (i.e., equipped and trained) militia.
The militia is the people, well equipped and trained.
To be well equipped and trained, the people must keep and bear their own arms.
To have and practice arms, the people must not be restrained in what they own.
The Founding Fathers saw that, for the country to be secure from enemies within and without, the people must have the tools and skills needed for war. A professional standing army was only desireable insofar as the people were not themselves ready to do the job. The Founding Fathers believed this so much that they later (1792) required by law that practically everyone be armed at least to a minimum standard; there was NEVER EVER EVER any indication by the Founding Fathers that anyone should be limited (number or scale) in what arms they owned (the closest being a requirement that armed ships post a refundable bond before heading out, lest they cause trouble - that restricted use, not ownership).
The Founding Fathers sought an ideal wherein the people could be called up to wage then- (and now-) modern war. Doing so presumes the people could bring suitable arms: mostly small arms, but some bringing large-scale crew-served arms if such could be afforded. Gov't-run armories provided what the people could not.
NOWHERE do the Founding Fathers indicate the people should be limited in what arms they owned.
To argue otherwise is absurd; in this lengthy thread, advocates of such a preposterous view have indeed failed to provide supporting documentation, while their opponents have posted much.
Methinks the thread has petered out. Advocates of the limited-definition-of-"arms" view have had ample time to back up arguments with historical documentation, but have instead fallen into name-calling. 'tis time to end the debate, and start consolidating the very interesting facts which have been provided.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA 34):
Private individuals can possess a functional machine gun, silencer (suppressor), short-barreled rifle or shotgun, smooth-bore pistol, cane gun, or destructive device (certain shotguns, grenade launchers, hand grenades, bazookas, mortars, cannon, etc.) only after first paying a Federal Transfer Tax of either $5 or $200 per firearm/device.
The $5 tax applies to pen guns, cane guns, smoothbore pistols, or any other such firearm that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms classifies as "Any Other Weapon" (AOW). All other functional guns or devices in the NFA registry require payment of a $200 federal tax for each private transfer. The tax is not an annual tax. It only is paid each time a functional NFA firearm is being transferred to or from a private owner (excepting inheritance).
Hummmm... -- Isn't it amazing that all of the 'small arms only' devotees here have no comment when shown the facts as posted above.
Those facts have no bearing on the protections offered by the Second amendment.
Strange statement, seeing you claim that we have no right to own cannons.
You think you can buy a Nike missle with a warhead? Or an ICBM with MIRV capability?
I've visited the private collection of a man that owns two 'Scuds', one on a mobile launch vehicle, [& dozens of tanks/artillery pieces] The nuke warhead? -- No. the possession of nuclear materials are quite correctly regulated by common law.
Cannons are not military weapons anymore and are not considered as such. I would bet your insurance company would take a dim view of your possession of them in any case.
Another odd, 'dim view' belief. -- You would lose on the insurance bet. They cash my premium check very quickly.
Those are not what the boys play with and you know it.
You are reaching and falling flat on your ass.
“UNITED STATES MILITIA LAW
Title XVI, Revised Statutes US
Sec. 1641 All corps of artillery, cavalry, and infantry, now existing in any State, which, by any law, custom or usage thereof, have not been incorporated with the militia, or are not goverened by the general regulations thereof, shall be allowed to retain their accustomed privileges, subject, nevertheless,to all other duties required by law in like manner as the other militia.
Source: Manual of the Militia Laws of the United States and of the State of Michigan also rules and regulations
Compiled by William Shakespeare, Quartermaster General, by direction of the State Military Board
1863
I'm holding it in my hands right now. It's talking about private groups of armed people.”
All state law on militias was sort of made OBE by Presser v Illinois where the supreme court ruled specifically about a states right to both allow and prohibit militias.
Here is the most interesting part from this case:
“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.”
http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/pups/presopin.htm
This said, although the Court ruled citizens have a constitutional right to keep arms, they ruled the state had a right to keep these very citizens from drilling with them. The ruling, bizarre as it is, is in keeping with prior decisions about concealed arms and the states power to regulate concealed carry.
If it is a protected right they cannot. If not then we can figure out how.
So which is it. Does anyone have a right to possess Ricin?
If it is a protected right they cannot. If not then we can figure out how.
So which is it. Does anyone have a right to possess Ricin?
No they were specially commissioned and were not allowed without those commissions.
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.