The Constitution and weapons

[armoredman]

edited, no proof linked

 

[hammerklavier]

According to you, no one is allowed to CC, OC, or go to a range.

If it only said keep that would be true, but it also says bear.

Yes, I do upkeep my arms. Rebuilding a gun as a gunsmith does, is a manufacturing process, not an issue of upkeep.

 

[SaxonPig]

This one of those topics for which there is no resolution. Once again we debate the meaning of the wordage in the Second Amendment. Some will argue endlessly that a person should be able to own any weapon, period. If you have an extra 10 million dollars in your pocket go buy that surplus Mig 17 with fully operational 23mm cannon and heat seeking missiles. Go ahead and set up that 105 howitzer in your back yard. get yourself that 60mm mortar with incendiary shells you've been eying.

This is an absolute interpretation of the Constitution. Ask any jurist and he will tell you there are no absolutes in the law. Sorry.

If you truly believe that any and all weaponry should be legal for citizens to own then start lobbying your elected representatives. But I would have to oppose that notion. I believe there needs to be some limits. We just need to decide where those limits fall.

BTW- If you feel all weapons should be legal, how about all drugs? Abortion on demand? Euthanasia? Public nudity? Gay rights? A true libertarian would support total freedom, not just when it applies to guns and many of these things could be argued as protected by the Bill of Rights.

Crashbup- The ATF would not consider the flame thrower to be a destructive device of some sort? Hard to imagine not.

 

[Gungnir]

If you truly believe that any and all weaponry should be legal for citizens to own then start lobbying your elected representatives. But I would have to oppose that notion. I believe there needs to be some limits. We just need to decide where those limits fall.

And that's the rub, with the same belief, Brady wants no firearms, many want a return for a AWB, many more support no automatic firearms.

BTW- If you feel all weapons should be legal, how about all drugs? Abortion on demand? Euthanasia? Public nudity? Gay rights? A true libertarian would support total freedom, not just when it applies to guns and many of these things could be argued as protected by the Bill of Rights.

This is just emotional rhetoric, and has no real place in this discussion, it's cheap and easy, which is why the gun grabbers use it. The discussion is about the constitutional limitations on weapons ownership not libertarianism.

Actually rather than debate what "we" believe, why not , as Art mentioned on the now closed original thread, debate where the founding fathers, if they could see the vast array of weaponry we have today, would draw the line, because it's not really about what we believe, its more about what they believed.

 

[Shadow Man]

If it only said keep that would be true, but it also says bear.

Yes, I do upkeep my arms. Rebuilding a gun as a gunsmith does, is a manufacturing process, not an issue of upkeep.

So let's say that I have a firearm in my barn. Am I no longer keeping and bearing it because it isn't on me or in the house? I think not. The FF's didn't specify how we had to "keep and bear", just that we had the right too, and that right could never be taken away. Whether my neighbor and I keep a rifle in a common shed or we each have a rifle of our own is a moot point, we are exercising our right to "Keep and Bear Arms".

So when your car needs work, do you take it back to the manufacturer? I doubt it, you probably take it back to the dealer or a shop you trust. Just like when I needed a side mount put on a classic rifle I owned, I took it to a smith I trusted to get it done correctly. No manufacturing about it, just simple modification (upkeep) that I didn't trust myself to do.

 

[divemedic]

See, this thread has degenerated into internet blowhards throwing out opinion. That is why I specifically said FACTS. PROOF.

If you can prove that the FFs meant that RKBA meant only weapons that you can carry, provide proof, or you are simply blowing hot air.

I have PROVEN that many citizens owned cannons during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. These are the people who received letters of marque and reprisal. In essence, the military was privatized. Anyone that has any evidence or proof to the contrary, post it.

Opinions are just that.

 

[Gungnir]

Actually I don't DM, which is why I've stayed mostly silent on this thread. I did more than enough internet blowharding on the other thread

 

[Rosstradamus]

You guys and gals need to read the Heller decision. Right now.

 

[Shadow Man]

My apologies DM, I'm sure I contribute to that degeneration.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Here is my canned response:

It Is Simple And Basic.

The government is forbidden to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The right itself is without limit. All power granted to the government is derived from the inalienable rights of the people. If the right of people to keep and bear arms contained any limits, the people could not grant power to the government for it to keep and bear up unlimited arms to defend the nation. In any scenario, the government cannot limit the people's right to arms to any lesser degree than the power of that government to possess arms as is granted to it by, and from, the people. In granting power to our government to keep and bear arms to defend our nation, we do not surrender any of the right from which that power is derived. To surrender, or even simply deny any portion of the right exists, is to also deny the same derived power to the government.

Without that central or a state government, we would have to defend our land ourselves and would have every right to access, create, bear, and deliver any weapon necessary to that end. We simply grant some power to the government out of convenience. We did not surrender any of that power to the government, either. Purposefully, Article I, Section 8, begins, "Congress shall have power;" and not, "Congress shall have the power;". We still have as much right to any and all weapons as we have granted power to the government to have.

It follows, then, that should the government(by the actions of those chosen to run the government) wish to limit in any way what arms and the fashion in which we so choose to keep and bear them, it can not do so without infringing upon the right. In that the right is inalienable, not even we the people can divest ourselves of it, therefore, we can not grant power to the government to limit our keeping and bearing of arms. We can share our right to keep and bear arms with the government as a power granted to it, but cannot surrender any of it to the government. The bottom line is that the government is, and is of, us. It cannot do to us anything we cannot do to ourselves.

Go read the Preamble to the Constitution. WE ordained and WE established the Constitution. WE had(and still do have) the RIGHT to do that, would you not agree? We have the right to govern ourselves. We exercised that right to establish(construct) the Constitution and ordain(to appoint) it as the foundation for our union. All power granted or delegated to the government is derived from our right to govern ourselves. The power of the government is inferior to any right or rights we the people have. It is the same no matter what the right might be. Just as the government has no power, nor could it ever have the power, to control my right to think, it does not, nor could it ever have, the power to control what arms I choose to keep and how I shall bear them. It is that simple.

Woody

"Revolution is the Right of the People to choose Freedom over Servitude. Those vested with power shall neither deprive the People the means, nor compel such recourse." B.E.Wood

 

[divemedic]

Some research has found this:

American newspapers of October 12, 1782, report that the privateer Pilgrim, Captain Robinson commanding, was chased ashore on Cape Cod by the English frigate Chatham, "Men, guns and stores saved, but vessel in a dangerous
position."

On October 23rd, an advertisement was printed that read, "At Distil House Wharf, Beverly{Massachusetts}, all the stores lately belonging to that well found ship, the Pilgrim, including ten pairs of nine-pound cannon, will be sold at auction."

Yet another piece of the puzzle that seems to indicate that cannon were owned by private citizens, even if expense precluded their being in common use.

Here is a list of some privately owned ships with cannon from Beverly, Mass:

Brigantine Defence, 170 tons, 16 six-pound cannon, 100 men. Privateer. On petition of Andrew Cabot and Moses Brown, July 6, 1779

Schooner Diana, 40 tons, 4 guns, 20 men. Privateer. Petition of Joseph Swasey and others of Beverly, Richard Lakeman commander, August 20, 1781. (Massachusetts Archives, clxxi. 64.)

Schooner Dolphin, 40 tons, 6 guns, 35 men. Privateer. Petition of William Homans and others of Beverly, Joseph Knolton commissioned commander, July 14, 1781.

Ship Essex, 200 tons, 20 guns, 150 men. Privateer. Petition of Jonathan Jackson, Joseph Lee and J. & A. Cabot, April 14, 1781

Sloop Fish Hawk, 50 tons, 8 guns, 40 men. Privateer. Petition of John Dyson in behalf of Josiah Batchelder, Jr., and others, September 1, 1779, William Groves commissioned commander. (Massachusetts Archives, cLxx. 378.)

 

[Zoogster]

Now we live in a world where a militia standing against a modern professional army is even more of an epic fail than it was in 1812. Please note, that a militia, as the FF conceived of it, was not a guerrilla movement or an insurgency. A militia was expected to fight on the conventional battlefield like professional soldiers; all they actually did was run away or die.

Actually what we would view as modern insurgency as well as stealthy hit and run tactics (special forces) got much of their start in the American colonies.

It actually started while fighting the Native Americans. The Indians used a lot of stealth. There was Indians on both sides of most conflicts, whether with other Indian tribes or French vs English. So the colonists both faced the tactics themselves, and were taught them by allied natives.
The colonists began to adopt their tactics. There is many books and documentaries that go into detail. Clumsy backup weapons like swords gave way to hatchets and tomahawks carried in combat. Mobility and stealth superseded body armor (metal) and brute force.
Ambushes, hiding, using cover and camouflage while firing and similar "cowardly" tactics started to become common. These were not the tactics of professional soldiers.
In a day when professional soldiers lined up against opposing forces and fired in an "honorable" and manly way. Professional soldiers had a system of forming lines in which they fired and reloaded while others fired. The system meant it was always someone's turn to fire while others were reloading. They also wore clothing meant to intimidate and make a bold statement, rather than blend in.

The colonists "cowardly" tactics were used to seriously damage the British on several occasions. During the return trip to Boston after Lexington and Concord for example the British lost far more men to sniper fire along the length of the trip than they did in direct conflict. These British troops would have ripped apart any who challenged them directly, but they could do little against slowly being picked apart by "cowards". The professional soldiers' disdain for such tactics is mirrored by a modern soldiers disdain of IED attacks. Both viewed the users of the tactics as cowards, because regardless of their prowess on the battlefield they were still susceptible to those willing to take up arms.
Whether they could take on 10x as many of the "cowards" in direct combat using the best military force in the world didn't matter. They still couldn't force them to fight openly.
They also used explosives and grenades frequently at the time especially in close range ambushes. Iron grenades were common.

The reason the history books do not mention these insurgents as often is because history focuses on specific battles which have decisive outcomes. Small numbers of insurgents killing a few troops here and there all over the colonies regularly are too numerous to mention, and individually not significant enough to mention. No battle is won by the insurgents that kill a dozen troops and then disappear to do it again another day. Nothing decisive is accomplished.
When combined though both the loss of men, equipment, logistics routes, and especially morale was high. Being as much if not more of a contributor to defeat than the regular forces.

To think the founders were not very familiar with insurgent tactics is wrong. Though the founders would have viewed themselves as more than just rebels, the British saw them as nothing more than treasonous British citizens.
While the militias could not be relied upon to hold their ground against professional soldiers, or to venture far from home for long without deserting, the militia members often continued to pose a danger to occupying forces in the form of insurgents. It was in fact what they were best at when faced with a much more powerful professional force.

 

[shockwave]

Now we live in a world where a militia standing against a modern professional army is even more of an epic fail than it was in 1812.

The Mahdi Army, which is Muqtada al-Sadr's militia, has been an extremely potent and effective force in Iraq. In the case of a militia defending against a foreign occupier, the militia has the home-field advantage, and the support of the locals. Any vets back from the theater would undoubtedly laugh at the quoted bit above.

A militia in the form we think of it today could not prevent an invasion by a formal army, and, as in the case of Fallujah, won't have much luck if the invader opts to level a city to the ground with heavy munitions, but militia gains ground in the second phase following invasion, where sniping and booby traps and IEDs become effective.

 

[Mr. T]

DiveMedic---

I couldn't agree with you more. Our own Federal Government through the usurpation of well meaning "Progressives" have been infringing on our ownership rights since the early 1900's. It's incrimentally gotten worse each time more "Progressives" attained power. The people are on the verge of starting to take back many of their rights and if the Washingtonians were smart they would offer little resistance, else there be bloodshed in the process.

 

[jhco50]

Man, some of you sound like intellectual pansies. The Constitution is not all that hard to understand and they said what they meant. The 2nd Amendment says we have a God-given right to keep and bear arms and that that right will not be infringed. That means the government is supposed to keep their greedy, power hungry fingers out of that part of the Bill of Rights! Period!

There is no discussion to be had here. The Constitution is not a living document and does not change because society changes. It means what it means and the government is way more powerful than it is supposed to be. With that power comes corruption and can anyone "prove" that they are not corrupt? No, but you all know they are. We have proof of the Bill of Rights. Have any of you read the letters written by the founding fathers while composing the Constitution? Read them and you will know what they were thinking when the put in the Bill of Rights.

 

[TexasBill]

If you truly believe that any and all weaponry should be legal for citizens to own then start lobbying your elected representatives. But I would have to oppose that notion. I believe there needs to be some limits. We just need to decide where those limits fall.

BTW- If you feel all weapons should be legal, how about all drugs?

Yup

Abortion on demand?

That, too

Euthanasia?

As in assisted suicide? Absolutely!

Public nudity?

Depends on who's nude...

Gay rights?

Sure, why not?

A true libertarian would support total freedom, not just when it applies to guns and many of these things could be argued as protected by the Bill of Rights.

 

[divemedic]

Man, some of you sound like intellectual pansies. The Constitution is not all that hard to understand and they said what they meant. The 2nd Amendment says we have a God-given right to keep and bear arms and that that right will not be infringed. That means the government is supposed to keep their greedy, power hungry fingers out of that part of the Bill of Rights! Period!

Well, call the Supreme Court, the internet has spoken! Glad that's settled.

Again, we are looking for historical references to show that heavy weapons were in common use in private hands at the time of the founding. What I am NOT looking for is another thread of he said, she said.

Thanks.

 

[Shung]

TexasBill and myself share the same ideals, I guess !

Zoogster, very interesting and realistic post ! thx !

 

[danprkr]

I frankly doubt they envisioned cannons as a weapon to be owned by individuals, as the cost of a rifle at that time was quite a bit compared to the yearly earning of a common man. Perhaps collectively as a village owning such a piece of hardware. And frankly, even as a second amendment advocate, I'd fear some of the gun owning public having access to rockets, high explosives, etc. I'm sure we all know of gun owners who are a bit scary even having regular firearms.

You do realize that this is the EXACT same argument that is used to justify banning large magazines, semi autos, etc. don't you? I think from the letter that presented it is fairly clear that the FF meant anything the gov could own we could own.

 

[kludge]

My feelings:

The 2A covers all arms.

If you want to ban nukes from private ownership, then you need to pass a constitutional amendment.

Really, how much opposition would you get? None.

Why don't they do it?

It sets precident for other things... like battleships, fighters and bombers... large ordnance... missles, tanks, rocket launchers... and on down the list.

If the lawmakers set precident by amending the constitution for every new type of arm that is developed, then they would lose the court battle when they try to ban things under the commerce clause.

It's much easier to stack the courts with like minded judges, than to actually follow the Constitution.

The argument that a person has to able to bear (carry) an arm to be covered by the 2A is total and utter BS.


.
.

As a side note, the Founders intended the Militia to be "natural defense" of the nation, and all able bodies persons were expected to be trained in the use of arms by the States. Standing Armies are the bane of liberty. (Yes, "ARE"!)

 

[danprkr]

BTW- If you feel all weapons should be legal, how about all drugs? Abortion on demand? Euthanasia? Public nudity? Gay rights? A true libertarian would support total freedom, not just when it applies to guns and many of these things could be argued as protected by the Bill of Rights.

Drugs - Check, just don't come running to me when you fry your brain out, and can't feed yourself or in any other way be a productive member of society. Please go to an out of the way place and starve.

Abortion on demand - check, just as long as there is no heart beat stopped. For me the heart beat is the indicator of life. After that you have had your right to choose, and made your choice. To stop the heart beat is to murder.

Euthanasia - Check, assuming the person wanting to be euthanized is of sound mind to request it.

Public nudity - check, we all have one of 2 sets of plumbing what's the big deal. Granted I ain't going out looking like I do, and you should be happy about that. Trust me.

 

[danprkr]

jhco50

Agreed.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Ask any jurist and he will tell you there are no absolutes in the law.

Absolutely correct. There are, however, absolutes in our rights and some of those are enumerated in the Constitution.

If you truly believe that any and all weaponry should be legal for citizens to own then start lobbying your elected representatives. But I would have to oppose that notion. I believe there needs to be some limits. We just need to decide where those limits fall.

If you believe there needs to be limits, amend the Constitution and set those limits. In the mean time, as George Washington said in his farewell address, "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole of the People, is sacredly obligatory upon all." The part I highlighted in bold is what we stand on in our fight to unfetter our RKBA. Take your stand and act upon the part of Washington's address that I posted but did not highlight in bold.

A true libertarian would support total freedom, not just when it applies to guns and many of these things could be argued as protected by the Bill of Rights.

It's not that these things are protected by the Constitution, it's that Congress doesn't have the power to act in those areas. Those are areas reserved for the several states and the people thereof to act as they see fit. The realm of arms is one of the very few areas enumerated in the Constitution that are protected from government infringement.

Drugs - Check, just don't come running to me when you fry your brain out, and can't feed yourself or in any other way be a productive member of society. Please go to an out of the way place and starve.

Abortion on demand - check, just as long as there is no heart beat stopped. For me the heart beat is the indicator of life. After that you have had your right to choose, and made your choice. To stop the heart beat is to murder.

Euthanasia - Check, assuming the person wanting to be euthanized is of sound mind to request it.

Public nudity - check, we all have one of 2 sets of plumbing what's the big deal. Granted I ain't going out looking like I do, and you should be happy about that. Trust me.

That is where the powers granted to the several states comes in as granted in their respective constitutions; or as reserved to the people in those several states according to their own good judgment, conscience, faith, and their willingness to live with the resultant consequences.

Woody

 

[X-Rap]

I have to agree with the notion that the 2a allows for individual ownership of arms greater than hand held weapons.
I think the wars prior to 1900 provide proof that whole units were raised and armed by individuals with the means to equip them. I am sure that when the conflict was over they didn't return them to that mans yard but the point is he purchased and equiped a military unit with the weapons needed for war and if he elected to have a cannon or Maxim mg for himself there was no prohibition.
In those days if someone turned something like that against their fellow citizens they would have been promptly executed after a speedy trial, let us go back to the times of quick and honest judgement for a few decades and we won't need to fear the criminal nearly as much.