Posted on 07/08/2015 9:28:10 AM PDT by Freeport
By jove, I think you got it!
Maybe like this guy.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/11/12/fort-bragg-airman-to-receive-2nd-silver-star.html
I was not imposing my own facts, specifically pointing out that this was opinion. My belief is that the militia is everyone able to bear arms. Further, I believe that the 2dA contains two clauses, one that protects the militia from government infringement, and a second that protects the RKBA from government infringment. I also believe the government has gone to great lengths to infringe upon both of those rights.
I concur that your opinion of the 2dA is far more broad than my interpretation, but neither of which are supportive of government restriction. I am simply of the opinion that the FF's designed the 2dA to protect the most sustainable form of weaponry available to the common man. Whether they envisioned WMDs or not is beyond the scope of our discussion, but an interesting one none the less.
Finally, please forgive my screed of the previous post. I interpreted your comments as an insult where one may not have existed. For that, I apologize.
Firearms weren't specifically mentioned either.
If you’ll just dial 911; the authorities will be right there in about 30 minutes, just in time to take your body to the morgue & allow the intruder to escape. :o(
Okay.
How about some support for the distinction you draw between "ordnance" and "arms"? How do you determine that the first is not a proper subset of the second?
Can you provide anything prior to, say, 1850 that supports such a distinction? The "shot heard round the world" was fired in Massachusetts in April of 1775. The Regular Army of their own government was sent to confiscate what I would call "arms" in Concord that were in the possession of those opposed to that government's actions.
Each and every colonist who opposed that confiscation put their lives on the line to oppose what the government thought was a legitimate function of government. These colonists certainly acted as if they had a right to possess what the government was trying to confiscate.
Of interest also is the use of the term “small arms” rather than “arms”, found frequently in international efforts to disarm the unpopular.
Within the definitions maintained during the time period. To "bear" arms, as in "keep and bear" always meant 'able to be carried':
Often, the following, in this case excerpted from U.S. v. Emerson (see Part V [Second Amendment], C [Text], 1 [Substantive Guarantee], b [Bear Arms]), is used as an attempt to show bearing arms was synonymous with carrying:
Also revealing is a bill drafted by Thomas Jefferson and proposed to the Virginia legislature by James Madison (the author of the Second Amendment) on October 31, 1785, that would impose penalties upon those who violated hunting laws if they "shall bear a gun out of his [the violator's] inclosed ground, unless whilst performing military duty."
This may be limiting, but within the rationale of the day. So, in order to fulfill the definition of 'bear' a weapon needed to be able to be carried, of which, cannon cannot. Further, the dictionary of the day defined ordnance as :
Full Definition of ORDNANCE
1
a: military supplies including weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and maintenance tools and equipment
b: a service of the army charged with the procuring, distributing, and safekeeping of ordnance
2
: cannon, artillery
A web site that I frequent has compiled a rather exhaustive list of support for the 2dA and the RKBA: Guncite on 2d A
Your point is well made.
That others misconstrue it is no reflection on your missive.
Good find. This is a more-modern distinction where the UN/International Community is attempting to draw a line between man-portable (prolific) weapons and larger, more destructive forms of weaponry on a national level. Both of which they desire to be only at the UN level.
The anti-gunners attempted to interpret "bear arms" to mean something like "to participate in armed combat". They were trying to tie Militia service to the Second Amendment protection. The courts were required then to clarify that to "bear arms" means to carry them.
I don't agree that only arms which may be carried by a single person are those protected.
I have always appreciated the following:
"A well-educated Electorate being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Does this mean only voters can keep and read books? Does this mean only people who can read are allowed to keep books. Does this mean that libraries can be banned because libraries are not people? Does this mean that people are allowed to read books but are not allowed to write them? May newspapers be banned because they are not books? Can the government require that you read a book before you can keep it? Would the government be justified in limiting how many books one may read or keep? Are there books which are just so dangerous that government may ban them?
What can possibly justify different answers to the above questions when it involves "arms" and not "books"?
Although the above questions may seem rather frivolous, I live in the People's Republik of Kalifornia. Here it is a felony to put a three-ounce plastic pistol grip on an otherwise legal rifle.
But the fundamental issue is whether the FF's wanted to include cannon as a protected part of the 2dA. I do not believe that they did. My rationale/opinion is that none of them could have envisioned that it would even be an issue. IMHO they believed that once it was established that the right already existed, a simple clause in the Bill of Rights would be sufficient for the gov to keep their hands off. They knew that government unchecked will descend into tyranny, but they also believed that the populace would keep that in check and prevent such from occurring with every election. Unfortunately, after the events of 1861-1865 we lost States rights and our nation began its decline into what we currentl have.
It goes farther back then that, to the original ratification, to be precise. This falls into the definition that I described previously. IMHO the argument presented by the pro-2dA group at the time did so horrendously. They attempted to include sporting and hunting in the rationale and it was an abject failure, with ripple effects still being felt. The militia clause was conflated with the RKBA instead of being used to mutually support each other.
I don't agree that only arms which may be carried by a single person are those protected.
This is where we merely have a defnitional disagreement. I agree, fundamentally, that all people should be able to own whatever weapon that they can afford, but from a Constitutionally legal standpoint, I just do not believe it is there.
"A well-educated Electorate being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
What can possibly justify different answers to the above questions when it involves "arms" and not "books"?
This would rest on the differences between the representation of the 2dA that you provide and the 2dA itself. Your phrase infers a requirement that people read in order to be educated. The 2dA infers a need to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well-regulated militia. The difference might be that one does not have to read in order to be well-educated. It would help, but not required. A militia needs to be practiced in weaponry and have it available in order to be prepared when called. I know I am over simplifying it, but I hope you get my gist.
Reading some history of privateers, I see no indication of any government actually supplying the ships and arms used by them. If the government did supply the ships and arms, then it would be a navy ship and not a privateer.
Ships at sea are subject to attack by pirates such as those around Somalia and they have always been subject to such attacks. It is foolish to operate an unarmed ship in such waters and, in my opinion, the operators of such a ship have an unalienable right to keep and "bear" deck guns of whatever type they see necessary to protect their lives and property. ( The old saying, "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts" refers to a giant wooden horse capable of holding several men and was not something that could be carried by a man.)
If such armed ships are owned by Americans, they have an unalienable right to possess those same arms when in an American port.
Government disarmament is the problem and not the solution.
What words could be included in the Second Amendment to make it what you believe it "should" be?
Are you saying that people "should" have such weapons but have no right to them? Why would they not have the right to something they "should" have? The lack of a "right" to own such weapons is what makes it possible for the government to ban such weapons.
Why would you grant the government the power to disarm people of these weapons? If you believe that people "should" be able to possess such weapons, what convinces you that our Founders didn't want what you want?
Excuse the redundancy, but I'm curious as to how you reconcile these issues.
Most people would be quite surprised the extent to which the courts have lied about the Second Amendment in order to achieve their ends. The recent Heller decision from the Supreme Court did not require overturning the infamous Miller decision because the Miller decision, in fact, was never what other courts claimed it was.
it is not only the right, but the DUTY of every citizen in this nation to not only possesses, but to keep and maintain the very arms that our military possesses...
***********************************************************************
And if a law abiding citizen can’t afford a gun, the gov. (taxpayers) can provide one, along with a monthly allotment of ammo. A government give away program I could probably go along with.
Once again, did not say such. The letters of marque were their work around to existing situations. The FF's realized that they did not have the weaponry/ships/etc. to shrug off Britain's yoke, so they hired out. Quite common, even today.
Vessels at sea are the odd man out as there were a great majority of privateers. The Continental Congress could not commandeer them, so the basically said, "anything with a Union Jack is fair game, you keep the gold, we get the weapons." But just because they made allowances for such, did not mean that they wanted private ownership of major end items such as frigates and ships of war.
Government disarmament is the problem and not the solution.
Agreed, but I would go even further and say that government is the problem, not just government disarming of the populace.
I would have put words to the effect of: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of all people to keep and bear all manner of weaponry, shall not be infringed nor shall any citizen be deprived of the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their homes, or their Nation."
But I ain't no lawyer...
Are you saying that people "should" have such weapons but have no right to them? Why would they not have the right to something they "should" have? The lack of a "right" to own such weapons is what makes it possible for the government to ban such weapons.
You keep getting me confused with someone who wants to grant Congress the power to deprive the people of a God given right. Not so. Just because I do not believe something is codified in the Constitution, it does not follow that I believe it should not be there. As to what the FF's did or did not want, I defer to the Federalist Papers, to which I fully support and agree with.
v.r
rj
Like I said, should be interesting.
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.