Posted on 06/28/2004 8:51:29 AM PDT by nypokerface
Hardly. You have posted no real proof of that contention whereas I posted the legal definition at the basis of the Founders' thought on the term.
If you don't like quotes direct from the Founders, that directly counter your bullsh*t, that is not my problem.
No but your problem is that the quotes do not support the argument you have based upon them. Shattering of quotations which vaguely address the issues convince no one using logic to actually analyse what they say.
Actually, yes they do. Your refusal to acknowledge this is childish.
Also, here is the full quote from Blackstone
5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation , when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
This more than suggests that the citizens/subjects of a country can only keep themselves free from oppression if they can mount an equal force to that brought to field by an oppressive government. Not just a Right, but a Duty. If a government works to disarm its populace, then should that governments motives be questioned.
Which gives even further lie to your statements.
Need more? We can go 'round and 'round on this. you are wrong and the facts do not bear up your side of the argument. The only recourse you have is to bring up MODERN interpretations to bolster the gun grabbers side of the debate.
Are you sure you really want to do that?
Neither of those refer to anything other than the arms of a soldier (at that time swords, bayonets, and firearms.) Artillary was not the instrument of the ordinary soldier or the ordinary militiamen and it was not owned by ordinary soldiers but by units specially trained in its use.
You keep pretending that Cletus had a cannon in the barn which he would wheel out at the militia call out.
And, of course, the even more deadly weaponry such as Sarin gas or bio-chemical weapons could never be allowed in the hands of ordinary men without tremendously fatal consequences to innocents.
Are you seriously going to maintain that the second gives us the guarantee that individuals can possess such weapons? That the members of the neighbor mosque could keep them in their basement?
BTW Tenche Coxe was NOT a Founder (defined as a signer of the Constitution) though he was a man of some consequence.
Try again to find a real Founder who supports your position. You won't.
Actually my definition for arms was from pre-Revolution England it is not modern at all but was the basis for the thought of the founders.
Secretary of the Treasury under Hamilton. Wrote several highly influential papers during the time period. Nope. Tench was just some wack-a-nut we can ignore. I suppose we can disregard Story? Locke? Plato? Aristotol? Blackstone? Maybe since almost none of the signers of the Declaration of Independance were alive after the War for Independance, we should just ignore them as well?
Tucker was a Revolutionary War OFFICER in the militia as well as later on a Supreme Court Judge in Virginia. Should we remain silent on what he thought? How about Noah Webster who also served in the militia?
??The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits. ... and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.??
? St. George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court 1803
??Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States??
? Noah Webster, 1888
Take your silly little "sarin bomb" non-argument elsewhere. This thread is not ABOUT sarin. It IS in fact about the so called "assault weapons" issue, your attempt to establish a "lethality line" to establish a border to the RKBA issue is specious. It is also a favorite tactic of your friends on the Left. Your round and round assertions are not getting you anywhere.
This ain't about crime anyway, it's about controlling the people and who rules.
WE as Citizens of this country RULE. Not the Government.
Right you are.
I spent 6 mos and $4,300 to build and get 3 BATF permits for a Class III AR-15: 3-round burst lower, short barrel upper, silencer. Lots of paperwork and running around, but full-auto anything is possible, as long as you do the routine legally.
My Ar-10's next up for mods.
We used to. Things are a bit backwards these days. People like justshutupandtakeit seem to prefer it that way as well. Nothing they have said so far has made me think otherwise.
=== It's such a dumb movie
I think I've just found my first point of disagreement with you. I can't believe you said that.
The soundtrack alone saves the film ... even without all the dialogue the likes of you, Lurker & others are quoting with relish.
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.