There are few mentions of “arms”, armed”, or “militia” in the Federalist papers. Mentions of that “all-important” subject are rather sparse.
Realising of course that the Constitution stands on it’s own, and that the “Federalist Papers” were not voted on, and are not part of the constitution, the writers spent little time on the subject of militia, frankly because it wasn’t really a big thing in their time to suggest that people needed to be allowed to own weapons. Sure, they had seen a government try to disarm them, but there was little support for that amongst the Americans.
That’s why I wanted to see if you had anything concrete to offer, rather than a nebulous reference to “the federalist papers”, as if they contained an answer that would at all support your position.
A literal reading of the few sentences in the FP about the subject would suggest that ANY weapons used by the military would be permitted to the people without restriction. After all, the point of the amendment was to ensure that, if government got out of control, the people could rise up against it.
It makes no sense to claim that right to take back government if the government owns much superior firepower.
In revolutionary times, the guns owned by the people were in many cases superior to the ones provided to the army. Of course, in many cases they were the same, because people used their own weapons.
But anyway, I appreciate that you at least acknowledge that there IS an appropriate line to draw between weapons you can own, and weapons you can’t own.
Which means that Romney’s drawing the line is NOT itself an abrogation of constitional thought, as some pretend. We can argue whether he draws the line in the right place, but that’s an interpretational question, not a factual one. I don’t think he draws it in the right place, but he’s not too far off, and as everybody draws the line SOMEWHERE, the fact that he draws a line does not mean that he’s invoked some imaginary slippery slope that will take us into a weaponless future.
It is certainly true that the government no longer allows the people to own enough weapons to overthrow the government. And when a group even HINTS at such an adventure, the government slaps it down, like Waco.
But allowing a few more semi-automatic weapons in the mix wouldn’t change that. In order to really rise up against tyranny, we need a lot more than what the government will allow. The whole idea of the people being able to do so is but a quaint memory.
Incorrect -- it was indeed a big issue in Revolutionary times to protect the God-given right to own weapons (not to "allow" people to own them -- these rights transcend the government and what it "allows.") Governments of Europe during those times were notorious for infringing on people's natural right to keep and bear arms. The Founders were intent that our governments not infringe upon those rights. And the velidity of the Federalist Papers stems from the fact that they give us a view into our Founders' intent -- which is why originalist Supreme Court justices such as Clarence Thomas refer to them when working to understand a given issue's Constitutionality.
But anyway, I appreciate that you at least acknowledge that there IS an appropriate line to draw between weapons you can own, and weapons you can’t own. Which means that Romney’s drawing the line is NOT itself an abrogation of constitional thought, as some pretend
Wrong. The Founders described what they meant by RKBA; weapons such as suitcase nukes do not seem to fall under the Founders' description. But the rights Romney proposes to infringe with the so-called "assault weapons" ban clearly do fall under the Founders' view of rights and arms protected by the second amendment.
You're arguing that because a prohibition against suitcase nukes is not a second amendment infringement, that basically nothing is. I'm arguing that the federalist papers describe the general types/levels of arms the Founders meant when they wrote the second amendment, and that Romney's gun-grabbing proposals very clearly infringe upon those.
It appears to me that you believe our rights as they relate to RKBA are arbitrary and based on what's "appropriate;" I believe the definition of what falls under our natural RKBA are pretty well described in the Federalist Papers.