Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: stuartcr
Does this mean we can own tanks and aircraft, maybe have our own armies and navies?

The general rule of thumb that I have seen, and which is sensible, is that private individuals should by law be permitted arms up to the same basic armament as an army infantry soldier. This was the standard in the time of Washington and Jefferson; we don't quite meet it today.

4 posted on 10/27/2011 7:17:03 AM PDT by Oberon (Big Brutha Be Watchin'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Oberon

I can’t imagine applying for a CC permit for a grenade.


8 posted on 10/27/2011 7:27:47 AM PDT by stuartcr ("Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Oberon

If that were the case, how would someone execute a Letter of Marque and Reprisal?

They wouldn’t.

They would need the equivalent of what in today’s world would be a battleship.


26 posted on 10/27/2011 9:47:45 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Oberon

It was not the standard at the time of the founding. There was privately owned artillery, war ships etc. etc. The 2nd amendment means exactly what it says.


30 posted on 10/27/2011 10:12:58 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Oberon

Why only basic armament?

I want an M4A1 with ACOG and M203 launcher.

And I want to carry it on the NYC subway.


78 posted on 10/28/2011 3:33:21 AM PDT by wastedyears (Attaaack Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Oberon

What you see as “permitted up to”, the founding fathers saw as “minimum required” - read the Militia Act of 1792. Anything beyond that was more than common folk could afford - but if you could, you were more than welcome to bring to a fight.

This notion of RKBA being limited to one-man ordnance is absurd.


82 posted on 10/28/2011 6:57:40 PM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Oberon
The general rule of thumb that I have seen, and which is sensible, is that private individuals should by law be permitted arms up to the same basic armament as an army infantry soldier. This was the standard in the time of Washington and Jefferson; we don't quite meet it today

Not so. The Constitution authorizes Letters of Marque and Reprisal, allowing the use of privately armed shipping- and other forces; it is not limited to naval warfare- as private military contractors to engage hostile forces wherever they might be found. That means that the crew-served weaponry necessary for outfitting such foces must, of necessity, also be available for the use of the American citizenry and employees engaged in such actions.

Too, remember that Henry Knox, Washington's first General of artillery and said to be both "the father of the Army Artillery branch" and "the father of the U.S. Navy," was a self-taught amateur artillerist, whose personally owned cannon and experience developed fromm their use, was essential to the founding of this country. He was of such importance that he became our first Secretary of War, and at least four military installations have been named in his honor, the most recent being the one in Kentucky where the nation's gold is kept. Also named for him are several cities and counties, including the one in Indiana from which this response was sent.

84 posted on 10/29/2011 1:48:53 PM PDT by archy (I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson