When the 2nd amendment was written, I doubt the founding fathers had WMD (which are arms), tanks, machine guns, hand grenades, etc. in mind.
If by arms, the writers meant single shot musket and maybe rifles, I think everyone is on board with that. I don't think you should be able to keep a nuke in your house and even a hand grenade or RPG is out of bounds.
Private merchant ships often had cannons (those that didn't would be easy prey for pirates). I think in a duel between a merchant ship armed with 18th-century cannons and someone with an AK-47, the merchant ship would win.
NO! but thanks for the shining example of the slippery slope that got the 2nd Amendment to where it is today.
Sorry, but I want enough firepower to make a platoon of Reno's irregulars think twice about knocking my door in.
If by arms, the writers meant single shot musket and maybe rifles, I think everyone is on board with that. I don't think you should be able to keep a nuke in your house and even a hand grenade or RPG is out of bounds.
When the 2nd amendment was written, the United States had recently finished the Revolutionary War. The people had revolted against a tyranical government. The idea was that the people would have arms to ward off an invading country or overthrow a tyranical one.
You don't do that limiting the types of arms you have.
Nonsense.
Our Founders were rebels operating completely outside the laws which governed the colonies at the time.
They took cannons by force of arms from their own government's Fort Ticonderoga, hauled them through a snowy countryside, and arranged them on the heights surrounding Boston. They threatened their own government's navy with destruction if the government didn't evacuate the troops occupying Boston since shortly after the Boston Tea Party.
This was several months PRIOR to the creation of the Declaration of Independence. The clear intention of the Second Amendment is to prohibit the monopoly on power which the government had at the outbreak of the American Revolution.
Actually, WMD would be ordnance.
When the 1st amendment was written, I doubt the founding fathers had in mind the internet, which any citizen can use to broadcast dangerous opinions around the world. Clearly the 1st amendment should be limited to speech transmitted in-person, by town crier or on paper.
Keep and Bear arms means just that. In fact, the argument has been made that you should ONLY be allowed to store weapons suitable for military use.
I see this thread has brought out the anti-gun trolls in force. They had every weapon including cannon and individual warships in mind. Ever heard of letters of marque and reprisal? I didn't think so. Oh and because you obviously didn't know, they had grenades in the 18th century.
If by arms, the writers meant single shot musket and maybe rifles, I think everyone is on board with that. I don't think you should be able to keep a nuke in your house and even a hand grenade or RPG is out of bounds.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting REALLY f#$%ing sick of people who are clueless on the 2nd Amendment insulting my intelligence by claiming that Rudy's views are consistent with it, and actually thinking that I'll buy it. You people are doing more harm than good by spouting this nonsense. For the sake of your guy, consider shutting up about guns.
That's like saying that the 1st Amendment only applies to parchment and quill pens. But since Ol' Rudy also supports restrictions on freedom of speech (McCain-Feingold), he probably holds that view too!
We are notionally governed by our consent. Think about it logically...in order to truly "consent" one must retain the ability to refuse, otherwise the "consent" is not actually given freely, but obtained by an implied threat. It's really not any different than the "submission" demanded by Islam. When the US citizenry is no longer able to resist the coercive compliance with agreed upon rules, we are no longer being governed by our own consent. I'm not saying everyone should go around breaking laws or testing government just for the sake of doing so, but merely reserving the ability to do so.
Gun grabbers are increasingly trying to separate the right to keep and bear arms from its constitutional underpinnings. To everyone but liberals and gun grabbers the word militia implies a body organized for military use. The Supreme Court Miller decision of 1939 held that the militia was 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
To begin with, only the national government was represented at the trial. With nobody arguing to the contrary, the court followed standard court procedure and assumed that the law was constitutional until proven otherwise. If both sides were present, the outcome may have been much different.
However, since only one party showed up, the case will stand in the court records as is. As to the militia, Mr. Justice McReynolds related the beliefs of the Founding Fathers when commenting historically about the Second Amendment. He stated that, ". . .The common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
It is clear that the firearms that are most suited for modern-day militia use are those semi automatic military pattern weapons that the yellow press calls "assault weapons". Since nations such as the Swiss trust their citizenry with true selective fire assault rifles, it seems to me that this country ought to be at least able to trust its law-abiding citizenry with the semi automatic version.
Self-defense is a vital corollary benefit of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But its primary constitutional reason for being is for service in the well-regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state. WE must be prepared to maintain that security against even our own forces that are responding to the orders of a tyrannical government, and the only viable way to counter a standing army's qualitative advantage is with a huge quantitative one. Don't let the gun grabbers and their politician allies separate us from the constitutional reason for the right to keep and bear arms. Miltary pattern weapons are precisly the weapons that should be MOST constitutionally protected. Even defenders of the right often neglect the constitutional aspect of it, and concentrate on their near non-existent use in crime.
The modern day individual firearm for a soldier is usually a selective fire assault rifle and/or a semi-auto handgun.
We need to constantly remind the people what the militia in the 2nd amendment is REALLY for..... A citizen body organized for military purposes and by extension, logically equipped with weapons of military utility. Just consider that the founders of our nation had just finished defeating the greatest military power on the planet, thanks in no small part to a citizen militia, armed with military weapons such as the smooth bore Brown Bess musket, and often technologically superior rifled muskets. It is the height of absurdity to think that the second amendment in the Bill of Rights is primarily concerned with shooting bunny rabbits.
If we don't constantly emphasize the constitutional reasons for the Second Amendment than we shall surely lose it, because hunting, while a worthy enterprise, is too trivial a reason to maintain it has a constitutional protection. We need to emphasize to our hunting bretheren that maintenance of the second amendment's constitutional rationale serves to protect their rights to continue to own firearms for hunting. The second amendment is literally the final check for the preservation of our republic from the depredations of untrammeled tyranny.