Agreed, but I did not want to bring The Lord into this dialogue. Weapons ownership in its own right is already controversial. Even though I like to post these photos of one man's home collection:
Posted on 03/16/2008 2:51:10 PM PDT by kiriath_jearim
Agreed, but I did not want to bring The Lord into this dialogue. Weapons ownership in its own right is already controversial. Even though I like to post these photos of one man's home collection:
Oh yes, I fully understand that.
Nice collection.
Happiness is a warm gun.....
The right of self defense is a GOD given right. No wonder the left hates that idea.
BTW, 50 years ago when I first shot rifles and shotguns, I did not wear glasses nor were hearing protection even sold in the civilian market.
34 posted on 03/16/2008 4:41:28 PM MDT by Cobra64
We have all learned a number of things in the past fifty years. I know that I have. You will notice I said nothing about the first photo,
where the young woman was not wearing glasses.
Please don't feed the troll.
“well regulated” does not means controlled it means working.
like be able to shoot a gun and hit your target.
Thanks for the pics at #15, but someone should tell that young lady about the cleavage-seeking nature of searing hot, freshly-ejected brass cases. I’ve seen it happen several times, always much to the delight of all the guys on the range (except the rangemaster). :-)
The militia was everyone. But the founders didn't believe that an armed populace would be effective without being trained -- and training everyone was out of the question. From Federalist 29:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need."
They decided a "well regulated Militia" was necessary to the security of a free state. And, according to the Militia Act of 1792, only adult, white, male citizens qualified. They were "the people" of the second amendment. Not everyone.
"Therefore it was incumbent upon all able-bodied Americans to be armed and trained via individual ownership of arms. This way the militia could be formed on an ad hoc basis, and then disbanded as the need had passed."
You're just making this up. Only a select group were trained. Less than 20% of the population at the time.
And they were trained with muskets -- inaccurate, but suitable for volley fire. If citizens had private weapons, more than likely they were rifles, accurate for hunting and personal self defense, not smooth bore muskets.
What if the entirety of the Second Amendment read “The right of the People to keep and bear Arms?”
I’ll give up my guns just as soon as the French give up their white flags.
I’m working on it now! I’ll let you and a few others know ASAP!
Good thought that, about not feeding trolls. Here’s an item from the Militia Act of 1792 which tells you who the founders legally defined as members of the milita (btw, the 2nd describes a right of the people, not a right of the militia members or a right of the state)...
“That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,”...
“That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service”
The founders weren’t out to create a “select militia.” Just the opposite...
“The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” quote from Richard Henry Lee in “Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer,” 1788. He was a delegate to the Continental Congress, signer of the Declaration of Independence, Revolutionary War militia Colonel and United States Senator, too.
Too simplistic. It wasn’t just “frontiersmen” who carried arms. Any cursory reading of 19th century big city American newspapers will show that various city gentlemen - I don’t know the percentage - carried all types of revolvers in their coat pockets for use.
No he’ll attempt to find a way around that notion. As noted above, feeding trolls is a waste of your time. This one knows enough to deliver a plausible (one-sided) view, and will never acknowledge that their argument is incomplete. This person changes the subject or doesn’t respond. Your call. He knows I’ll never ever respond directly to another post of his, because I just won’t put up with the bilious ignorance he displays.
I've seen it a few times. The wimin always seem to get annoyed when I volunteer to extract the hot brass from their shirts.
Another gun thread ruined by paulsen insisting that the USSC’s 2nd amendment doesn’t really protect anyone besides government agents.
In the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 gave the power to arm the militas to the federal government. The question arose, "What if Congress refuses"? The second amendment was written to ensure that the federal government could not interfere with the states arming their own state militias.
Patrick Henry gave a great speech on this at the Virginia ratification convention:
"But, says the honorable member, Congress will keep the militia armed; or, in other words, they will do their duty. Pardon me if I am too jealous and suspicious to confide in this remote possibility."
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.