Posted on 07/16/2004 8:59:00 AM PDT by neverdem
I'm simply saying that "arms" is more a military term. "Guns" is more a civilian term. Do you agree?
Well said. This is another issue that gets bogged down by those who would seek to destroy the 2A. The two separate clauses contained within. The first to prevent the Federal government from destroying the militia. The second to prevent the Federal government from removing arms from the citizenry.
Hmmmm. All along I thought he was awakening the Minutemen, members of the Concord militia.
Learn something every day.
No "Letter of Marque" needed.
Cool. Makes me want to go out and get a more modern equivalent, the M20 75mm (3") recoilless rifle. After all, it's a "rifle" which makes it "arms" and not ordnance. IIRC, there's a 106mm rifle too.
We were only sidetracked cuz the original article (as well as apparently a few here) believed cannon, et al, are not included in the 2ndA.
So now we have to explain to every1 that ANYTHING is included in "arms"!
May be unimaginable esp. w/today's giant weaponry, but it has to be true! Otherwise we'd never be able to overthrow a big gov like this if we have to face their airborne bombing attacks w/a bunch of "small-arms fire"! I'm quite positive the Founders, fresh from experiences precipitating and during the RevWar, intended we should as a people be able to separate and that that would mean whatever means possible. FGS, it was a REVOLUTION against a GOVERNMENT! Why can't people understand that?
The militia comprised of what? Regulars? no, Common citizens. Men 16 through 50 yrs of age that were required to muster 2 times a year for a couple of weeks to drill, but mostly ended up partying.
Still common citizens...not paid military soldiers.
So is "poop deck". The Navy is strange.
Then one must logically assume that the Citizenry must possess arms superior to those which would be used by the Federal government to dis-arm the Citizenry.
To be under-armed with less firepower would render the Second Amendment useless and pave the way for a tyrannical government which would have an easy win over the Citizens.
If the Amendment was written for the purpose you suggest, then it is for the People to establish the rules of engagement and the weapons to be used therein -- NOT the government.
After reading that, it appears that the broader interpretation was right. These ships, one with 26 guns, legally existed in private hands. The letters simply let them legitimately conduct the pirate activities they were capable of.
It's too bad that localities have neglected that practice. I, for one, would love a chance to muster with the "local militia". Not only would it be another excuse to spend some time outdoors, but it would strengthen that sense of community that seems to be fading in the US.
I think so too. Check my # 90.
My take is that the Bill of Rights says to keep hands off.
I'm not trying to parse you death, but that could be interpreted as saying the Tenth Amendment means hands off the State's prerogative in the area of the RKBA.
It could also mean that the States are required keep their hands off of people's guns.
Let me ask one more time. Are States bound by the Second Amendment in your opinion?
Bring your own firelock...I have a .50 cal kentucky/virginian you can borrow :)
Any idea what the bore diameter of 10 and 12 guage shotguns are?
It's all about definitions. Let's use a term that practically everyone in the world can agree upon: What is an "arms dealer" and what does he deal in? Small arms only, or does he also sell rockets, grenades, airplanes and bombs?
Effective in a limited scope. No real replacement for a professional Army, but bounty hunters operating under Letters of M&R could be extremely useful in hunting terrorists today.
I would say that "arms" is a better term, and it certainly leaves no question as to what is being discussed. "Guns", on the other hand, has a slang-like feel to it. Radar gun. Squirt gun. Nail gun. This is my rifle and *this* is my gun. It makes sense that the military would retain the proper terminology.
Nowadays, "arms" sounds more "military", but when the Bill of Rights was written, that was not the case. The American vocabulary has suffered much in the past, oh, 150 years.
(sarcasm)That oughta be fun.(/sarcasm);-)
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.