Thanks Iron Munro:
Posted on 08/20/2019 5:57:01 AM PDT by Kaslin
You may have noticed that all advocates of federal gun control are arguing for the same end result, which is federal limitations upon the individual right to own firearms. But the underlying arguments as to why they believe that the federal government should be allowed to do so can vary, and often pretty wildly.
There are some who argue, for example, that the Second Amendment was never meant to guarantee any individual right, as CNN’s Chris Cuomo recently argued. Some others may argue that the Second Amendment only protects guns owned for the purposes of hunting or sport. That’s all intellectually indefensible, given the precise words of the Second Amendment and ample facts which provide the historical context for its inclusion in the Constitution. As such, these examples are rarer than the other, more honest argument among gun control activists that I’ve encountered.
Generally, this latter group of gun control advocates rightfully concede that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to own firearms, but that the Founders just never imagined weapons as deadly as an AR-15, for example. They argue that it was never meant to protect those kinds of deadly firearms, despite the fact that the deadliest firearms on the planet at the time of the Constitution’s ratification (the same used by regulars in the British army, for example) were clearly meant to be legally kept in law-abiding American citizens’ homes.
But in the end, all these arguments boil down to one thing -- what gun control advocates think Americans “need.” Irrespective of the mental gymnastics needed to philosophically get there, the closing statement in these arguments for gun control invariably goes something like this: “Why does anyone need a [insert any arbitrarily chosen gun, or gun accessory, of some specific caliber, muzzle velocity, rate of fire,
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“There are some who argue, for example, that the Second Amendment was never meant to guarantee any individual right, as CNN’s Chris Cuomo recently argued.”
Nope, it’s settled law. You know about settled law, dontcha, rats...
and each individual has his own hierarchy of values. In a rational free society, one's hierarchy of values depends on one's particular context and standard of values, not on what leftards say.
Of course they want us little people disarmed. They're not stupid.
But if you are looking for stupid, look to those of our "great unwashed" who are buying into the idea of communism/leftism (and disarmament). This entire idea of Marxism/communism/collectivism is nothing more than a bait and switch being pulled by the aristocratic class.
There will never be a communist society where the "people" rule. Once republican/democratic government is overthrown by the communists, the aristocrats will step back into power, just as they are in power in the EU.
The more deadly weapon these days is the printing press - and by extension every form of MSM.
The founders never imagined computers and television whereby so few could lie to/mislead/influence so many.
What America “needs” is a lesson in Civics.
Our Constitution exists to ensure LIMITED government. There is very little that the federal government is supposed to do. The government does not have a blank check to go and do all the good things that an army of bureaucrats can dream up. The tasks for the feds are few and they are explicitly stated.
And the Bill of Rights takes this even further and lists 10 areas where the government is specifically restrained.
But America lost sight of all of this a long time ago. We even have court precedence that directly contradicts the Constitution (e.g. Gun Control).
“Why does anyone need”
What does need have to do with it? Where does the Constitution say that we only have a right to that which we need? Whatever they give you in prison is a superset of that which a person needs. Is that all we really have a right to? I do not think so. The right to keep an bear arms is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. And that is all the “need” we need.
For a medicare card and a monthly check, there is very little the average person won’t trade. It’s clear they are pimping out their children and grandchildren, along with everyone else’s, happily.
Once government took over health, it basically owns your right to live and breathe, look at Europe. They kill whenever it pleases them and that’s only the cases we hear about.
Imagine the real numbers so turn up your tv.. your time will come.
Agreed. The founding Fathers envisioned the need for citizens to bear arms in order for the populace to form local militias to fight off any external forces or those of a tyrannical government...
This is why they mentioned the need for an armed Militia in the 2nd Amendment...
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
At that time, a musket was the weapon of choice for the military and/or for the necessity of a well regulated Militia...
So, what weapon would be needed in 2019 to defend our liberty against either external invaders or against governmental tyranny?
Lawyerly types can find numerous interpretations of the language of the 2A, but it is all sophistry! The original intent of the 2A was to allow ALL citizens the right to own weapons in order protect their liberty...
Jefferson and Adams might not have envisioned the AR-15, but they surely envisioned a future all-powerful US government stealing the liberties of American citizens...and, the eventual need to throw off that tyrannical government...
Actually, Jefferson might have had design thoughts for the AR...
“The founders never imagined computers”
Donn’t give them any ideas. They will decide that freedom of speech only applies to material printed on one of those hand cranked things Benjamin Franklin used.
Why do I need a rifle?
Why does any Democrat need to be rich? Why does Bernie Sanders need three houses? Why does Al Gore need a gigantic mansion? Why does any liberal need a personal jet?
Why does anyone need to be told what he needs by someone else?
Nothing will get a crowd of liberals together faster than something which is none of their damn business.
At the time of the Constitution's adoption, you had privately owned cannons. You also had merchant ships armed with cannon for protection against pirates. You had a constitutional provision ("Letters of marque and reprisal") for privately owned warships.
Tell me, which is more lethal: an AR-15, or a cannon loaded with grapeshot?
“Our Constitution exists to ensure LIMITED government. There is very little that the federal government is supposed to do. The government does not have a blank check to go and do all the good things that an army of bureaucrats can dream up. The tasks for the feds are few and they are explicitly stated.”
How’s that working out?
***but that the Founders just never imagined weapons as deadly as an AR-15, for example.***
At a time when inventors were working on double, 4 barrel rifles, harmonica rifles, revolving rifles. Smith-Jennings rifles, Volcanic rifles, rapid fire air rifles...
16 shot Henry rifles, 32 shot Evans rifles...
American citizens always better armed than the military until 1956.
Army - Matchlock musket(1500s)
Civilian - Wheel lock rifle
Army - Flintlock smooth bore musket (1776)
Civilian - Flintlock Rifle
Army - Flintlock Rifle (1803)
Civilian - Percussion cap rifle
Army - Percussion cap rifle (1855)
Civilian - breech loading cartridge rifle.
Army - Breech loading rifle (1865)
Civilian - 16 shot lever action rifle
Army - 5 shot bolt action (1898)
Civilian - Lever, slide, bolt and early semi-auto and full auto rifles
Army - Semi-auto rifle (1936)
Civilian - all the above except full autos banned.
Army - full auto rifle (1956)
Civilian - semi-auto versions only.
Thanks Iron Munro:
sidebar from the FRchives:
Bizarre misreading: @HillaryClinton thinks the lesson of Orwell’s 1984 is that you should [tr]
Twitter | September 12, 2017 | James Heartfield
Posted on 09/13/2017 5:31:35 AM PDT by C19fan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3585431/posts
“The original intent of the 2A was to allow ALL citizens the right to own weapons in order protect their liberty.”
Over the last 40 years, the focus of gun control has shifted from handguns to “assault weapons”. The gun death rate has plummeted in that time, but the fact remains that the vast majority of gun deaths were and still are associated with handguns. They are no longer concerned about people being shot in the streets. They are worried about an uprising. I want to know what do they have planned that would provoke such a thing.
+1
Note that the required "Artillery Release Form" deals only with the safety aspects of muzzle loading cannon. As always, be sure of your backstop, and have a nice day.
So, what weapon would be needed in 2019 to defend our liberty against either external invaders or against governmental tyranny?
The Texas State Guard, which has no connection with the TXARNG might point one in the the direction of an answer. The state guard possesses armor, artillery and various other heavy weapons.
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.
