Replies

sneakypete said: 'All this is extra,though. The CLEAR intent of the 2nd Amendment is to insure the individual citizen have access to the same individual weapons as the individual federal or other army soldier."

Letters of Marque and Reprisal are authority to act. They did not come with weapons or any unneeded authority to obtain weapons.

The legality of black-powder cannons is irrelevant. Sea-going warfare today requires guns capable of penetrating significant armor. There was no intention to deny this to the people of the United States.

Please offer as an indication of our Founder's intent, any prohibition of a specific weapon of war prior to 1939.

I can't find the quote this morning, but at the time of our founding, it was said (paraphrasing) that we would not have to fear tyranny because "Americans are equipped with every terrible instrument of war".

If our Founders had meant for people to only be armed with muskets and black-powder cannons, they could have said so.

The quote I was looking for:

"Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right 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 of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

I am sure the anti-gunners will now point out that Coxe never mentioned the "terrible implements" of sailors, and that the "unlimited power of the sword" means that only sharp-edged weapons are covered.

The meaning is clear to me: if the government has it, then the people may have it.

Letters of Marque and Reprisal are authority to act. They did not come with weapons or any unneeded authority to obtain weapons.

Right. And what would they need any of those icky weapons for if they have the authority to act,right? All they would have to do is say "Hey! All you bad mans,you just go away,you brutes!",and stamped their feet a few times.

The legality of black-powder cannons is irrelevant.

Not when you used them as a example of the weapons our founding fathers had access to,they ain't. You were the one who brought them up,not me.

Sea-going warfare today requires guns capable of penetrating significant armor.

BS. Naval rifles are damn near obsolete. It's a missle war now.

There was no intention to deny this to the people of the United States.

WHO is denying you the right to own cannons,or even Naval Rifles? There is a guy in California who has TWO SS-20 missles. If you have the bucks to buy this stuff and can stand to do the paperwork,you could get one too.

Please offer as an indication of our Founder's intent, any prohibition of a specific weapon of war prior to 1939.

There was no such thing as a weapon of mass destruction prior to the A-Bombs we developed in 1944-45. The closest thing to this was the smallpox-infected blankets given to the Indians during the French and Indian Wars.

So,are you all pissed off because you don't have vials of smallpox and anthrax,or is it only the dream of owning your own nuke that gives you a woody? Americans are STILL equipped with the modern equivalent of "every terrible instrument of war". Your insane whining about not being able to own nukes is what is irrelavent. Listen carefully,ok? The 2nd Amendment applies to THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN. INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO OWN INDIVIDUAL TACTICAL WEAPONS,NOT STRATEGIC WEAPONS.

If our Founders had meant for people to only be armed with muskets and black-powder cannons, they could have said so.

The scary thing is you probably believe the above piece of fluff is profound.