28 replies to this topic

[MuseZack]

emsparks, on Oct 21 2003, 07:49 PM, said:

The second Amendment reads as follows:

Amendment II
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.
Source:
http://www.archives....transcript.html

If I remember my history right this Amendment, was written by John Adams, one of the most strident of the revolutionaries. It has been speculate that this is the ultimate check and balance on governmental power.

I would point out that in saying “A well regulated Militia,” it dose not say regulated by whom. It does not say that the federal government, or the state governments will maintain this militia. In the day that this was written militias where local affairs, usually encompassing a few towns, or a county at best.

I would also point out that the term used is "Arms," not pistol, not rifle, not shot gun, but, “Arms!” a much more inclusive term.

Remember it is said that "power corrupts, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely."

Just some points to ponder:

The once and future:
Sparky::

Two points:

One, John Adams was actually one of the more cautious of the Founding Fathers.  This is the guy who defended the British soldiers accused in the "Boston Massacre," after all.

Two, I would think that the example of Iraq would once and for all kill the idea that an armed citizenry is a deterrent to tyranny.  There is a country that was literally swimming in AK-47s and other forms of military weaponry that were easy to buy for Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds alike, yet the population was still kept under control by a totalitarian government.

[bandit]

Kosh, on Oct 21 2003, 04:08 PM, said:

Quote

I would also point out that the term used is "Arms," not pistol, not rifle, not shot gun, but, “Arms!” a much more inclusive term.

Wonder where I could pick up a hand held rocket launcher????

THe next local gun show.  
If you know the right people anyways...  

[Kevin Street]

Javert Rovinski, on Oct 21 2003, 01:18 PM, said:

Kevin-- Simple: The democrats are perceived by many of the all-important swing voters as cultural elitists. Shedding that image would be a significiant PR step.

Screw the swing vote. The Democrats should have coherent, rational policies that are true to their own convictions, and then communicate those policies as clearly as possible to the electorate. People aren't dumb. If they see something they like they'll vote for it. If the Democrats chase after one segment of the population like that dog used to chase the Gravy Train, they'll just lose their traditional support.

Edited by Kevin Street, 21 October 2003 - 10:40 PM.

[Norville]

Quote

Quote

I would also point out that the term used is "Arms," not pistol, not rifle, not shot gun, but, “Arms!” a much more inclusive term.

Wonder where I could pick up a hand held rocket launcher????

What I'd point out is that the Founding Fathers were not yet aware of assault rifles or rocket launchers. Would they have supported those in the "well-regulated Militia"? It just seems to me that assault rifles are perhaps more controversial weapons than were the weapons known to the Founding Fathers. I'm trying to state this delicately, because I've seen unendingly dire flamewars about gun control and the right to bear arms...

[Bad Wolf]

Kevin Street, on Oct 21 2003, 08:38 PM, said:

Screw the swing vote. The Democrats should have coherent, rational policies that are true to their own convictions, and then communicate those policies as clearly as possible to the electorate. People aren't dumb. If they see something they like they'll vote for it. If the Democrats chase after one segment of the population like that dog used to chase the Gravy Train, they'll just lose their traditional support.

WOHOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Goooooooooooo Kevin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tennyson]

Well, actually rocket launchers did exist in the Colonial Era British Army as well as grenades and grenadiers. The "rockets' red glare" of the national anthem wasn't just a rhetorical flourish. Now these rocket launchers weren't something you'd want to use handheld like today's LAW or any of a myrid other systems but they were a standard piece of any armies gear until they were replaced by much more accurate tube field artillery.

[Uncle Sid]

In terms of "well-regulated militia", if an army is carrying around assault rifles, they'd certainly want to ensure that people are carrying them around as well.  Keep in mind that in the Revolution, the people in the Continental Army were, for the most part using a version of the British Brown Bess musket or (eventually) French military arms.  

The founding fathers obviously were not against having normal people carrying around military grade hardware.  If they'd meant that they only wanted the weapons around for drill practice and hunting, they'd have said that.  A militia is there to respond to military problems and so it needs to be equipped as a military unit.  The difference is that this would have generally come at the expense of the various individuals, so it's pretty clear that the founding fathers were quite clear about the private ownership and purchase of weapons.

Now, of course, I have no issue with people having to be trained and properly certified on a weapon like an assult rifle, and generally I see no problem with a waiting period, but outright bans on such things are not constitutional.

[emsparks]

Dear Zack;
With respect;

MuseZack, on Oct 21 2003, 10:16 PM, said:

... One, John Adams was actually one of the more cautious of the Founding Fathers. This is the guy who defended the British soldiers accused in the "Boston Massacre," after all. …

The “Boston Massacre” wasn’t a massacre; it was an out of control mob that attacked the Boston customs house, and the British troops lost control, shooting and killing five individuals. Continuing to call it a massacre to this day, speaks very strongly to the propaganda value instilled in this tragedy by Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Hancock, and Paul Revere.

Just because John Adams was not a rash man, does not mean, by definition, that he was not a passionate one. John Adams, was well known for his very strong views, It was his strong views against mob violence, his love of a good court room fight, along with the urging from John Hancock, as to the propaganda value if the British soldiers where acquitted, that made him defend the British troops. A defense that he won: except for the two soldiers that had their thumbs branded. Originally John Adams did not wish to defend the soldiers, but John Hancock, talked him into it. So the fact that he defended the British troopers does not speak to his cautiousness or the lack there of. Neither does this said cautiousness speak to the strength of his views, only to possibly how those views where expressed in public, if that.

By the way John Hancock, was the richest man in Boston, mainly through his smuggling enterprises.

MuseZack, on Oct 21 2003, 10:16 PM, said:

... Two, I would think that the example of Iraq would once and for all kill the idea that an armed citizenry is a deterrent to tyranny. There is a country that was literally swimming in AK-47s and other forms of military weaponry that were easy to buy for Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds alike, yet the population was still kept under control by a totalitarian government.

Yes; Iraq is “now” swimming in arms. The operative word here, being “now,” such was not the case prior to our invasion. It was not until Sadam armed all the members of the Baath party, on the neighborhood level, in preparation of our attack. The mass desertion of the Iraqi Army, both taking their personal weapons with them, and the abandonment of thousands of ammo dumps / weapons caches, further facilitated the arming of the Iraqi populace. So since prior to our invasion, only Sadam loyalist had weapons, this does not speak to the point your trying to make.

The once and future:
Sparky::

[CJ AEGIS]

emsparks, on Oct 21 2003, 07:49 PM, said:

I would point out that in saying “A well regulated Militia,” it dose not say regulated by whom. It does not say that the federal government, or the state governments will maintain this militia. In the day that this was written militias where local affairs, usually encompassing a few towns, or a county at best.

A few quotes on the Militia:

Quote

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES:  Subtitle A: PART I: CHAPTER 13: Sec. 311:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

Quote

Militia Act 1792: I. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

Comments come later.