Concerning the Second Amendment

[Hazcat]

Arms are any darn thing you want up to and including nukes.

Back then the public had cannon and battle ships (baddest thing known to man at the time).  So if you can afford it, have at it!

[DDMac]

Mr. Don, isn't the legal question really about the nature of the Constitution and how posterity is to interpret it? Pro-gun seems to read it in a strict constructive light. Literal instructions, to be applied word for word as was. Anti-gunners look at it as a moldable, changeable, adaptable guideline that "needs to change with the times". After all, it's 2008, in the good ole US of A. Who needs a militia? No civilian needs to be under arms. We have grocery stores for Pete's sake. Why hunt? There are no real threats to Democracy that can't be nutralized by abandoning your culture, prosperity and personal security. Government would never seek to impose any form of tyranny on it's subjects taxpayers. Right?? So the Court will decide if we leave it as it was, or start tinkering. What should be the outcome is clearly different to each side. Each is as fervently convicted in their correctness as the other. In this case, the Justices are the jury. Every jury trial is a gamble. I'm holding my breath. Mac

[Dougdubya]

Who needs to hunt?  Hell, who needs internet, or $500 I-phones, or motorcycles, or to drive faster than 25 miles per hour?

Besides, equating the Second Amendment to hunting is a load of slop from the south end of a northbound cow.  The Founding Fathers weren't thinking "oh, the people need hunting rifles."  They were thinking "the people need the equivalent arms as the military or any police force to prevent the possibility of either group maintaining an oppressive edge of superiority over those they are meant to serve."

So, if the American public can't have semi-auto weapons, the US military and city and federal law enforcement agencies should be mandated to destroy THEIR semi-autos, and their full-autos to prevent the possibility of abuse of power.  As that would make police forces and our military vulnerable in extremis, the only sensible option is to NOT limit the small arms choices of the American citizenry.

It's a pipe dream, but hey, I don't want the mass executions like they have in China, or had during the Cambodian, Vietnamese, and German crises of the past century or so.

[DDMac]

By golly, it sounds like 1776 all over again. Down by the Concord Bridge. Hold your fire a bit. Let'em get a little closer. Patience and resolve will win the day. Who says there is no modern militia?  Mac.

[kilopaparomeo]

By golly, it sounds like 1776 all over again. Down by the Concord Bridge. ...Who says there is no modern militia?

If you want a solid dose of that sentiment, attend a 2-day Appleseed course.  Fred and/or the instructors will give you a history lesson and talk about the self reliance of Americans and the American rifleman.  While not explicitly stated, there is and implicit message (at least that's what I heard from it) that we need to stand ready for the call.

When it comes, the internet will be our "messenger riding from town to town".  Beating our chest...yeah, but that's what it may take...hopefully not...but maybe.

In this order:
* Soap box
* Ballot box
* Ammunition box

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

Their was a Supreme court case , Cruickshank (spelling?) V US that found that the Constitution did NOT provide a PERSONAL right to own arms. The gungrabbers love this sentance, They hate the next sentance though as it states that the right PREEXISTED  the constitution. Kilopaparomeois correct when he points out that all other amendments use the phrase "the People"to mean Individuals, besides, Government does not have Rights, It has SPECIFIED POWERS.
  TAB, You use interesting examples, my gut tells me you are on the wrong track but I lack the education on these other amendments to counter them. Hopefully someone else will handle it. Any lawyers out there?

[tombogan03884]

I didn't notice the second page of comments before my last post, ( blame it on 4AM) but Mac and anyone else who snickers at the "armed revolt arguement"  REALLY needs to read the "Federalist Papers " and get a sense of what the Founders were thinking , in their own words. Phrases like " Let no man be debarred the use of arms" don't leave much doubt. Our Service Men and Women swear to "protect the Constitution against all threats , foreign and DOMESTIC". Though Abraham Lincoln came much later, He said " When the Legislature is in session, niether a mans Liberty or Property are safe.

[DDMac]

Regret it came across that way Tombog, just an obviously lacking attempt at sarcasm. Worry not, if the time comes, I'll meet you and all the others at the bridge. And I've got friends, with very good equipment and lifetimes of experience defending the Constitution, who will join us. Respectfully, Mac.

[tombogan03884]

Hey Mac, I hope you and your Friends are getting more practice than me , it's been COLD here lately.

[AgateMan]

This is a new reply to an old series of posts. I am the author and editor of the books Don Warsham has mentioned in this topic. Don Attended the Gun Rights Policy Conference sponsored by the Second Amendment Foundation last year. It was held in late September in Fort Mitchell, KY, just outside of Cincinnati, Ohio.

The book he mentions, The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, was not yet published when I met Don there. We sat next to each other during the conference and I let Don look at a pre-publication copy of the book. Only he and Dave Hardy actually looked at the book at that time. Dave Hardy's remarks about it can be found on my website at http://www.secondamendmentinfo.com .

If you want to know every detail of the Second Amendment's history and the American origin of its terms and their authors, you should read this book.