Second Amendment Thought...

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DonNikmare

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2004
Messages
420
Location
DFW, TX
Another thread indirectly prompted this thought and I was wondering what others would think...

Do you think the founding fathers would approve of citizens owning the conventional weapons of the our time? I'm talking tanks, military jets, etc.

I would think they would. The 2 amendment loses a lot of it's significance if one is only allowed to own small arms given the advances in conventional military weapons.

Cost would be prohibitive but at least the thought of overthrowing a modern government gone bad with more than small arms would be a possibility.

Nik
 
In the discussion of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, you will find the phrase "All the terrible implements of the soldier."

The founders clearly favored having arms in the hands of the people without limitations.
 
Yup, they meant for us to have ANY weapon the military had.
Back then, army had a musket, we had a musket

Today, army has full auto, we have uh, ....oh.....semi auto :mad:
 
Nothing to stop you from owning the fighter jet. Heck, Mig's pop up on Ebay from time to time. Same goes for old warships.

Its the guns on them that the ATF cares about.
 
Yup, they meant for us to have ANY weapon the military had.
Back then, army had a musket, we had a musket

Today, army has full auto, we have uh, ....oh.....semi auto
Click to expand...

"Why do we need rifles and pistols?"

"To keep the government from taking away our liberties."

"Why do we need machine guns, mortars and artillery?"

"To keep the government from taking away our rifles and pistols." :D
 
Lotsa armor for sale, some relatively cheap, just nothing with an operational main gun capable of denting anything modern....
But, you can get something tracked with offroad capability that will withstand small arms and shell fragments.
 
"Why do we need rifles and pistols?"

"To keep the government from taking away our liberties."

"Why do we need machine guns, mortars and artillery?"

"To keep the government from taking away our rifles and pistols."
Click to expand...

Lol...I like your train of thought.
 
If my neighbors want to pool their money and buy a tank or F-15, I don't have a problem with it.

However, even I will admit that it's a bad idea for people to have nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
 
Hell, they don't have to be "leftist extremists"! Gun boards are full of gun owners not taking a stand because they don't OWN/SHOOT, or see the "NEED", for THAT, type of firearm, its function, or its capacity! :banghead:
 
One of the powers of the federal government is to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal to armed privateer vessels. It gives the private ship the authority to conduct war on behalf of the US government. The owner of the ship has to scrounge up the cannons for it himself.

So yes citizens could own cannons and warships back then.

If you want to see what happens when you give up a certain class of gun just because it doesn't effect you, look no further than California. They've already banned machineguns and 'assault rifles', guess what's left on the grabbers' plate? The only things left to ban are mundane handguns and hunting rifles, they are working on laws to ban those too now (San Francisco for example).
 
Privately owned ships had their own cannon quite often in those days.
They had pirates to contend with and they were also used for signaling.

Privateers did find their own cannon, but my reading indicates the government also sometimes supplied them.

One good book on the subject is: The American Privateers by Donald Barr Chidsey.
 
Most of the colonial Malita's cannon were owned by the officers,uasuly well to do men,or the troop as a group.Some were purched by the states and loaned or given to the malita. :what: :D (YES)
 
Yes, because their concept of the army was that it should be composed of civilians and their weapons. The idea of a dedicated military wasn't part of their thinking.
 
Further with regards to 'small' arms, the people owned weapons that were the equal to and in many cases exceeded, the accuracy and deadliness of small arms of the King's soldiers of the time. This fact was not only well known, but can also be assumed in all the thoughts of the day on the subject.

Chris
 
Just ask the same question about the First Amendment. Did it apply only to quill pens and ink, or does it also cover computers, word processing software, and printers? What about the Internet, and sites such as this one? If we're covered by the First Amendment, our modern weapons are surely covered by the Second.
 
Considering the founders had no problem with private ownership of the most devestating arms of the day: full blown WARSHIPS,

and also considering the Miller test of "Militia Purposes", I've no doubt that 2A covers anything in the inventory.

But then again, we've not been under Constitutional rule since what...1934?

Yeah, I even consider nukes to be held "in trust" for the People.

Nukes simply ARE a special case, but just because they're a special case doesn't mean the .gov gets to have an automatic monopoly on them.

Still, I'm not going to complain about them until a solution that is principled, ethical and practical is evolved.
 
The FF gave us a republic where the government existed at the pleasure of the people, and its powers restrained by the Constitution.The 2nd is (was?) the means to keep it that way. Any law, ruling or regulation that diminishes our ability to restrain/remove/replace the government is an infringement of the RKBA. Should the government exclusively have weapons not available to the people?

Absolutely not.
 
Interesting thought, back then if you could afford it you could have a ship with all the weapons needed, be it cannon, ballista , pikes or other. By the same thought, and law, we should be able to have any ships and accutriments we can afford!

I find it interesting that you may not take weapons on your vessal to defend against pirates (that are known to exist in the carrabiean and the south pacific), since you would be in violation of port laws in many of the countries you may visit, and would be incarcerated in those ports. However these countries will not protect you against these rouges.

Anyone remember when you could buy a 109' destroyer (weapons decommisioned) for about 10K? was about 20 years ago and I'm sorry I didn't put myself in hock to buy it then!
 
Nothing to stop you from owning the fighter jet. Heck, Mig's pop up on Ebay from time to time. Same goes for old warships.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see someone buy a modern fighter, like an F-15. The government (D.O.D.) won't let it happen.

The most current fighter I've seen is a F-5 that was built up from scrounged parts.

But otherwise, yes, I agree that the Founders would want us to have access to all of the current military weapons.

I'm reading 1776 right now. It is about our predecessor's fight for freedom.
 
Like frogs in being boiled in water...slowly and gradually americans have lost a lot of rights. What would another 100 years bring?

Some interesting points! This has been educational.
 
Miller v. U.S. (1934) quotes information from the 18th century:
'The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.'

The militia soldier was to bear personal arms. Weapons systems and crew served weapons are not covered, though many weapons that do fall into these categories are legal to possess either as DEWATs or with proper DD paperwork today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Second Amendment
Replies
17
Views
833
taliv
T
C
  • Locked
The 28th Amendment | a thought experiment
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
bearcreek
B
S
  • Locked
Putting the Second Amendment Second
Replies
4
Views
565
myrockfight
M
I
  • Locked
Oh the irony! Jericho convention will be gun-free
Replies
14
Views
1K
Karma
K
2
  • Locked
The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to get arms, true or false? (Moved from Legal)
2 3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
4K
Robert
Robert
Back
Top