Posted on 07/08/2015 9:28:10 AM PDT by Freeport
Have any of you looked with wonderment, at the colossal coincidence that just when our government starts to become more fascistic, and the media more of a ministry of propaganda, there would be a big push to repeal the 2nd amendment?
The 2nd Amendment covers the usefulness of firearms to the leity known as the militia. George Mason correctly defined it:
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials."
Obfuscating 'arms' with 'ordnance' is outside of the scope of the 2A. While I would like to see ordnance included in the protected right, I do not believe it is there and attempting its inclusion may serve to degrade the argument. Just my opinion with this regard.
SCOTUS was quite wrong to declare that the militia is only the National Guard as this eliminates the gentry and limits the militia to only those specifically approved by a governmental body that always strays to tyranny. Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Mason and Paine would spit with anger to have seen this interpretation.
So, my point of contention was not petty, but fundamental. Arms belongs to every able bodied man. Ordnance, does not.
we will talk further after you answer this one..
That is my point, "ordnance" (not 'ordinance') is not in the BoR, specifically. The FF's knew what ordnance was and did not allow that for the militia, only the Regulars.
Would be an interesting story to find out why he did what he did: USAFA then SF, or SF as an enlisted then USAFA commission. . .and then what? Wiki has a confusing writeup about him and as far as I can find, no mention of USAFA, and while mentioning “former SF” there is no detail other than as a journalist doing field work with them.
His linkedin profile doesn't add much; https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=37913327&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=S7E9&locale=en_US&trk=tyah&trkInfo=clickedVertical%3Amynetwork%2Cidx%3A1-1-1%2CtarId%3A1436375579773%2Ctas%3AChuck%20de%20Caro
Would be interesting to read about his active-duty time.
“Most of what you list is ‘ordnance’ of which the Founding Fathers were quite familiar with and specifically did not include.”
You are incorrect. Private cannons were fairly common at the time. Lots of rich guys owned them.
Grapeshot tends to clear the air as well as the greensward.
Show us where in the constitution such things are only allowed to “regulars”. It isn’t there. Furthermore, things not specifically enumerated are left to the states.
Years ago, I worked with a former Marine Corps Intelligence Officer (MOS 0202) who was an Air Force Academy graduate. When asked the obvious question about the dissonance between his alma mater and service, he said that graduates of the three U.S. military academies have the option of selecting the branch of the armed forces they want to serve in. The vast majority go on to serve with their academy’s sponsoring service but occasionally one selects a different branch.
I also recall having an officer candidate from the US Military Academy at West Point in our Platoon Leaders Combined (PLC) Combined Course the summer I went to Officer Candidates School at Quantico. (Several decades ago now.)
Post 24, please.
Our Founders broke the occupation of Boston by the regular army of their own government by taking the cannon at Fort Ticonderoga which at the time was controlled by their own government.
And yet you believe that these same rebels, who were under threat of hanging for treason, would once again form a government with the power to monopolize the most effective arms?
Do you remember the SALT talks with the Russians? SALT stood for "Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty". When did this limited use of the word "arms" that you claim start and end?
One of the more common reasons today is marriage. For example, an Air Force graduate marrying an Army graduate or officer can get an Army commission, because it's easier to station them together.
Never said it was in the Constitution. This was the debate FOR the Constitution and the follow-on Bill of Rights. The FFs knew the difference b/w 'arms' and 'ordnance', which is the salient issue. You wish to include hand grenades and cannon. My opinion is that ordnance is not protected under the 2nd Amendment. I may be incorrect, but do not believe so. The following quote is very essential to this end:
“The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun.”– Debates in the Several State Conventions on Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed. 1836, vol. 3, p. 386
The self-defense deniers can try but the science is settled!
Some did, but it was not that common. The majority of what you refer to are smaller, swivel guns or smaller field guns captured from whatever beligerant left them on the field. The Colonies had no mills with which to produce cannon and relied heavily upon the French for such. Revere converted his shop to a mill in 1787 but it only produced smaller items for copper rolling.
you are correct about grapeshot.
Like I said then, I had met Lynne Russell in person in the late 70s in Kansas City. She is the real deal and apparently, so is her husband. Sounds like she had read some of the negative press and decided to set the record straight. I'm glad she did. And I am glad that she and her husband made it through this incident alive and the perpetrator is dead. Good riddance to him.
Nope. Never said that. What these rebels did, was to codify that every man has the God given right to keep and bear arms. They never once thought our government would be run by an undeducated, ungodly breed that sought to inject into the Constitution the right to abomination. But that is what we have. The debates that the Continental Congress had over enacting a Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation involved many things. The philosophy took two stances, one was to pre-suppose that all rights already exist and that they must limit the government. The second was that unless it is spelled out, the right does not exist. This debate carried into the Bill of Rights and the need for the Federalist Papers.
When did this limited use of the word "arms" that you claim start and end?
The distinction already existed, it is the context that matters. Arms can refer to many things, from the appendages attached to your shoulders, to man-portable firearms, to weapons in general (i.e. Nuclear Arms or the Arms Race). But in the context of the 2A, it specifically relates to firearms bearable by able-bodied men.
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --- Tench Coxe The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
When Coxe speaks of "swords" do you really believe that he limits the arms of the people to swords? Do you believe that his phrase "every other terrible implement of the soldier" refers only to muskets? Why would he use the word "every"?
How would the limitation you claim be consistent with the words, "The unlimited power of the sword" and what does Coxe mean when he suggests that such power is NOT in the hands of the federal or state governments?
Coxe was a Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress in 1789. Why would the people of Pennsylvania select him if he was so confused about the right of the people to keep and bear arms?
I have no issue with Coxe's inclusion of swords. The context is the difference between arms and ordnance.
Evidently you really do believe that he was specifically referencing "swords" and not all weapons of the soldier.
Having discussed this issue with others over the years I have concluded that your opinion is one adopted by those who are troubled by the fact that the Second Amendment has no limitations to the arms protected.
Man's ingenuity has certainly created "arms" which could only barely be imagined by our Founders and some which exceed the destructive power even imaginable.
Nuclear weapons, for example, those with explosive power in the range of tens of thousands of tons of TNT, are probably beyond what our Founders would have considered protected.
The solution to such a dilemma is obvious; amend the Constitution to exclude them.
The reason this hasn't happened is because there is NO bright line distinction which would make sense to replace what we already have.
People with similar opinions to yours would outlaw machine guns because they can fire 600 rounds per minute. How many rounds per minute should then be allowed? There is no mechanism for making such a decision. As is actually happening, there will be a minority who would outlaw arms if they could fire more than ONE round per minute.
Battleships at one time were among the most fearsome of weapons. If a person brought their privately owned battleship into San Francisco Bay, for example, there was a time when they could have caused massive damage to the city before any response to such an attack could be made.
So the question for you is; where is your bright line? How many rounds fired per minute? What caliber? How many guns per person? How much black powder?
Another question would be; "At what point did the people who freed Boston from the occupying army, change from rebels who were committing treason and possessing arms to which they were not entitled, into the legitimate armed forces of the United States?
The winners of wars get to write the history. Had our Founders lost the war, they would have been hanged and we would very likely not be having this discussion.
You really are a little man, aren’t you? No room in your world for opposing opinions?
Not once did I indicate that I subscribe to a limitation on the 2nd Amendment, merely that I believe ordnance was not included and that the FF’s were quite knowledgeable in their ommission. Machine guns are ‘arms’ as are .50 cal sniper rifles. All of which I have fired while on active duty as an officer of Marines.
Have you sworn to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic? I have! I have flown in combat over lands that did not have a Constitution, let alone a 2nd Amendment codifying the right to keep and bear arms. Those people, whose villages I saw set ablaze died because of it.
You attempt to inject into the discussion pedantic distinctions that never were included. Learn to read.
There's room for opposing opinions. But you don't get to have your own set of facts.
Your sentence that I highlighted in this post is very clearly self-contradictory. This is similar to what anti-gunners claimed about "people" in the Second Amendment; that it only includes members of an organized Militia.
Perhaps you might at least recognize that my "opinion" of the Second Amendment is completely consistent with the claim that you are limiting the scope of the protection.
My bottom line is that there is no practical limit to the weapons I would use to protect myself, my family, my community, or my nation. Infringing my right to keep or bear such weapons simply makes it more difficult. It's very similar to the situation the Founders were addressing with the Second Amendment. It shouldn't be necessary for me to steal weapons from my enemies or from anyone else in order to protect myself from such enemies.
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.