Posted on 01/28/2013 5:59:06 AM PST by Kaslin
I had a discussion the other day with someone who is very anti-gun and of course the 2nd Amend came up. We were at odds as to what a well regulated militia really is. Which article in the original constitution is the 2nd amendment actually amending? I’m not a constitutional scholar, so I couldn’t answer. I’d appreciate some freeper inputs.
Absolutely Yiu react with horror at the thought of your neighbor possessing a 50 megaton nuke but how likely is it? The market works here. And, thinking extraConstitutionally, how likely is it that an incredibly rich man would want a nuke? How likely is it that, outside of comic books a potential Joker would be able to control enough assets to buy a Bomb? Well, Hitler did the equivalent in his day, I suppose, but then, he got himself a State first. No laws would stop that guy if he arose in the USA because he takes control of the government before he gets the WMDS. His talents are political, not financial and rely on the destruction of constitutions for which no wording of an Amendment would be effective.
Those who could acquire Bombs by their wealth can better attain their desires, material and political, with the use of that wealth financially as with George Soros et al.
The need of a ‘well regulated militia” is a justification, not a limitation. That is the plain English of the statement. Ut does not modify the essential statement at all, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
If you have $37,000
Thanks. What is a well regulated militia? Is there anything that can be used for definition or comparison? Well regulated makes it sound like something that is organised.
You really don't know the history of the BOR?
Not sure I'd admit that, in public.
You've never read the Militia Act(s)?
Did you go to public school?
The 2nd amendment was probably one of the least controversial amendments at the time of the Bill Of Rights inception. Now it is the most controversial...
Most crew-served weapons can be operated by a single individual, and they can certainly be possessed and stored safely by an individual. And while leftists use made-up fantasies of being threatened by their neighbor having a belt-fed MG, they would only be in danger of its use, not its mere existence. The same can't be said for nuclear weapons.
Now, if one says we might need one to fight against an oppressive power, then the Constitution is pretty much moot at that point anyway, so use whatever you can get.
The militia itself is, basically, the citizenry.
Sorry tbAss, but I have no problem admitting something I don’t know that much about, that’s why I ask questions.
Actually, this is not correct. We all DO have the right to shout, "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. There can be no prior restraint - i.e. they can tape your mouth shut or remove your tongue before you enter a movie theater, just because you **MIGHT** shout, "FIRE!"
Oh, by the way, if there actually IS a fire in the theater, there can be no punishment. However, falsely shouting, "FIRE!" when, in fact, there is no fire and you know there isn't, has been properly judged to be a violation of the rights of others because it is likely to cause a panic (given human nature) and thus injure or kill some of your fellow movie-goers.
But they can't legally prevent you from saying ANYTHING...and in the same way, prior restraint on the 2nd Amendment by limiting (uh, err, INFRINGING upon) your right to buy a particular rifle or some accessory necessary to make it function properly (like ammo and magazines) should be illegal as well. Punishment after misuse is a different story.
FYI, I'm sure everyone knows the apochryphal story of a Marine Corps general who was asked about limiting the right to bear arms ("after all, general, they're equipped to be murderers")...to which he responded, "well, young lady, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but no one has a problem with you walking around scantily clad."). It isn't a true story, but its a good line. By the way, for any male over the age of 12 or 13, you're equipped to be a rapist...and I think that any calls for "prior restraint" of the type that the gun-grabbers would like for the 2nd Amendment would be met with "resistance."
“You mean a private person can own one of these”
Yes. They owned such equipment in 1776 including warships. You really don’t get the purpose and intent of the 2nd Amendment, do you?
Swivel guns were commonly mounted on the rails of ships to repel boarding parties. Potter's was reportedly loaded with rifle-ball-sized shot, (making it a huge "shotgun") and it was intended as the last line of drfense if hostile Indians breached the door.
At the time, such private defense artillery was not uncommon -- even for folks who were not public figures.
So, the idea of the right to "privately-owned artillery" extended well beyond revolutionary days.
Other synonyms are, “well equipped” and “well supplied”, “well trained”, and “well prepared”...
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
Now I like to see you carry one of these around
Or even one of those
What I mean is that I think there is a limit
Yes. Actually, they are.
Unless you think the Founders, who hired FULLY ARMED merchant ships as battle ships, wouldn't want the common folk to own things like field artillery.
You are one superficial thinker to believe a simple five second google search means you now have all there is to know on a subject.
Try researching just who owned the warships of the Revolution. Go ahead. Spend more than five seconds this time. While you are at it, since a cannon is an image you posted, go ahead and research for once in your life Lexington and Concord and just what where the British after the day the Shot Heard ‘round the World happened. (Hint: Cannons.)
It doesn’t matter to the RKBA what a “well regulated militia” is. It could say “For an improvement in nutrition, the RKBA shall not be infringed,” and the meaning for possession and carrying guns, knives, brass knuckles, RPGs, etc, would be precisely the same.
Well said!
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.