Language:
The Arms of the Militiaman extend to all weapons of the modern soldier portable by a single man.
Does this work for you? Should it be:
The Arms of the Militiaman extend to all anti-personnel weapons of the modern soldier portable by a single man.
Where do we draw the line? Should you have a shoulder-fired AA missile system if you can afford it? What about a fully weaponized tank? F-111 with full weapon suite? C-4? Landmines?
The question will be one of the first to come up from challengers who get a copy of our III to Congress in their hands. What is our position?
Kerodin
III
III
Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788: " Every terrible instrument of the soldier is the birthright 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 it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe, Continental Congress
ReplyDeleteWith these rights, come responsibilities. And a big purchase price. Armor is expensive, as are aircraft. But if that is what you want to spend your cash on, fine. Use it to oppress the liberty of your neighbor at your own risk. Manpads and AT-4's are cheap and effective. The nature of weapons precludes the stupid from more that one fuck up. Be an idiot with a claymore, and you will not get a second chance.
We can leave out the straw man argument of nukes and Chem/bio warheads. Simply because of the vast cost and physical danger of just maintaining such weapons, never mind development and employment. One nuke would break Bill Gates.
Point made, Nuff said.
Talk about synchronicity - I just yesterday wrote an argument explaining why "shall not infringe" needs no further explanation to a lawyer who was involved with _Heller_ and _McDonald_:
ReplyDelete"America had just finished fighting the most powerful standing army in the world, along with mercenaries hired by the British government. These soldiers were armed with the latest weaponry available at the time.
Is it logical to presume that the Framers meant for citizens of our newly formed country, recently forged in the fires of a horrific fight for freedom against an incredibly powerful oppressor, to be armed with LESSER weapons? Of course, not. It was their intention that we should be armed with _any_ weapons available to any government or standing army that might wish to wrest our freedom from us.
They saw no reason for us to have to fight at a disadvantage. I feel quite certain that, had you asked Jefferson or Franklin or Paine or Washington if citizens should be barred the possession and use of cannon, they would have said no. They did not specify that citizens could only own rifles, or only muskets, or fowling pieces, or dueling pistols, or pepperboxes, or swords, bayonets, axes, hatchets, tomahawks, knives or any other arms that were available. They never quoted a permissible length of barrel, or gunstock, or any other restriction upon what could be "kept" and "borne".
I am quite certain the Second was written to both emphasize the need for our young country to maintain a fighting force of properly equipped citizens (a well-regulated militia, "regulation" meaning properly equipped, as described in detail in other documents), equipped as well as any other fighting force in the world, and to make certain the citizens would not be disbarred the use, the possession and carriage of ANY weapons. Hell, at that time citizens were _required_ to possess these weapons, in similar fashion to what Switzerland decrees for its citizens.
America had just finished fighting the most powerful standing army in the world, along with mercenaries hired by the British government. These soldiers were armed with the latest weaponry available at the time.
Is it logical to presume that the Framers meant for citizens of our newly formed country, recently forged in the fires of a horrific fight for freedom against an incredibly powerful oppressor, to be armed with LESSER weapons? Of course, not. It was their intention that we should be armed with _any_ weapons available to any government or standing army that might wish to wrest our freedom from us.
They saw no reason for us to have to fight at a disadvantage. I feel quite certain that, had you asked Jefferson or Franklin or Paine or Washington if citizens should be barred the possession and use of cannon, they would have said no. They did not specify that citizens could only own rifles, or only muskets, or fowling pieces, or dueling pistols, or pepperboxes, or swords, bayonets, axes, hatches, tomahawks, knives or any other arms that were available. They never quoted a permissible length of barrel, or gunstock, or any other restriction upon what could be "kept" and "borne"."
The Founders obviously felt it extended to artillery as well as man portable weapons.
ReplyDeleteFrom a letter from Lt. Col. Smith to General Gage, concerning the patriots' arms, just before Lexington/Concord:
In obedience to your Excellency's commands, I marched on the evening of the 18th inst. with the corps of grenadiers and light infantry for Concord, to execute your Excellency's orders with respect to destroying all ammunition, artillery, tents, &c., collected there, which was effected, having knocked off the trunnions of three pieces of iron ordnance, some new gun carriages, a great number of carriage wheels burnt, a considerable quantity of flour, some gunpowder and musket balls, with other small articles thrown into the river.
I think "arms" means "arms". The British were marching to take cannon, among other things, when the first shots of the revolution were fired.
You may as well prohibit tractor trailers from private possession, as they are much more deadly than Ford Festivas.
All arms restrictions are unconstitutional. ALL.
The Patriots at Lexington were firing on their countrymen to keep their cannon.
Cannon.
Reject the premise.
Resist.
Part 2. Allow me to add this (it wouldn't fit in he last post):
ReplyDeleteWhen the people of Afghanistan were fighting the Soviet Union's invasion of their country, OUR country provided them with Stinger missiles to deal with Soviet Hind helicopters, which were defeating the insurgency. They did not give them to an army, they did not give them to soldiers, they gave them to the insurgents, to individual tribesmen in different parts of the country.
If our government was willing to arm these insurgents to defeat the oppression of the Soviets, can they reasonably deprive us of the ability to be so armed, to deal with similar threats? Might things have turned out a little differently at Waco if the citizens who died there had been armed with LAWs or AT-4s? If they had Stingers to stop the helicopters from shooting at them when they tried to leave the buildings as they were burning?
We should be able to possess any weapon that the military possesses and will issue to any soldier, sailor, Marine or airman. If our own government will continue to deprive us of the right to possess such weapons, and it becomes _our_ turn to fight oppression, then perhaps Mr. Putin, or Minister Hu - since turn-about is fair play - will supply an American insurgency with the Russian or Chinese equivalent of Stingers.
Sam,yes all! I do want a saw and smalls rockets.Honestly would it be any different than say .458 win mag? I don't really need one for any game here in Indiana but as an American I claim the right to own one if I desire!
ReplyDeleteChina
III
All of it is ours anyway folks. We all have first rate rifles and we know how to use them. If we're smart and we work together, we kill them and take their shit. Then, we turn it on them.
ReplyDeleteABSOLUTLY,all you have to do is LOOK at U.S. History. The standard Issue of the British Army was the Brown Bess and more that a few of the Colonists had weapons that where superior to that piece of weaponry,the Pennsylvania Long Rifle or any Rifled Muzzle Loader for that matter. And some of the Colonies had Cannon that had been loaned and or bought by different Colony's for their defence from the Indians and French. So when the Second Amendment was written it would only stand to reason that these weapons be included in the right to keep and beer arms, especially since the early U.S. Government did continue this practice of loaning these weapons to the earliest western settlers.
ReplyDeleteDennis
III
Texas