Of course.

But that will always be true. Go read the rest of The Declaration -

Quote:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

@Mrgone

I'll indulge you as the token TF left-statist.

"Please enlighten me as to this specific applicability called out in the constitution."

The 1792 Militia Act specifically called out the type of arms necessary for a militia, and these were the modern small arms of the time - rifles, ball, and powder that the citizens eligible for militia duty. The modern equivalents are machineguns, grenades, assault rifles, and handguns. It did *not* state that people were required to own battleships or cannon, though some did. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that *at a minimum* the 2A covers man-portable small arms of military utility as these are what was *required* to own for militia duty. The "ZOMG the 2A meenz nooclear weapons!" argument is commonly presented as a strawman by left-statists such as yourself to portray Constitutionalists as someone that wants a W88 in the back shed, and this specific argument is easily negated by a simple reading of the 1792 Militia Act.

Grf, great post. However, I read MrGone's comment as agreeing. Did I miss something?

I'd like to add that the very lack of prohibition on cannons, battleships, etc makes it clear that the founders approved of their possession by free citizens of a Republic.

The further existence of their contractual relationship with Privateers is proof that an equally militarily armed civilian population was their desire.

@Ylekiot

No, Mrgone is our local left-collectivist-statist-antigunner that we occasionally deign to respond to.

In this case, he's attempting to set up the strawman that the 2A protects the right to own ANY weapon no matter how destructive, and saying that anyone that *truly* defends the 2A should say this. In reality, the 2A specifically protects at a minimum only arms that are suitable for militia use - that is, infantry standard issue weapons. States however can protect the right to own howitzers, MANPADS, or even nukes if they so choose, but the 2A clearly proscribes the government from restricting us to anything less than standard infantry weapons like assault rifles, machineguns, grenades, and handguns. Anything beyond that interpretation is just Mrgone strawmanning uselessly.

Grf the wise demonstrates his mastery of the schoolyard skill set and believes that names and labels can accurately describe anyone. While I may be left of you and TF (hardly a difficult task) I am no collectivist, statist or anti gunner. In fact I own four rifles, two shotguns, three handguns and two pretty nice pellet rifles. Even went last week looking at a Romanian AK because the ammo’s so cheap and I like the bayonet.

Now to your not so well reasoned post;

First, my point is that the 2A says nothing about ANY restrictions in the ownership of arms or definitions therein. Certainly cannon were available. Can I not own a cannon or the modern equivalent? How about a nuke? Oh, now on to the real point I was making. That is that we all accept that there should be some “reasonable” limits to the ownership of weapons. That’s fine by me but it is in fact not fully constitutional. We have also decided as a people that certain folks should not own guns. These are criminals and crazy people. You can’t argue that they didn’t exist at the time of the writing of the 2A can you? So this is by choice. Again, not per the black letter of the constitution. So it turns out that “your” 2A rights are only those which the society at large wish to grant you at any given time. Sorry, that’s a fact.

Now on to your second and most ridiculous point, that is that the 2A is tied up in some way with the militia. I think I hear the NRA tearing up your membership card as I write this. There are two issues here. IF the 2A is about arming the militia it is there for a very important reason. To provide for defense of the country in case of attack and/or to resist tyranny. Under today’s laws you have the right to neither. Your simple weapons allowed to you won’t do ****. Think not? All you need to do is look to Libia. All the weapons in my house wouldn’t do anything to even to most trivially armored vehicle, air support or even drones. You also state that this is the basis for which weapons should be allowed. Again, nonsense. The modern equivalent infantry has access to automatic weapons, grenades, RPGs, shoulder fired SAM and all manner of things you can’t legally own.

The bottom line is that the “right to bear arms” like all other “rights” in this country, are actually more like strong suggestions. They are only rights to the degree that the rest of us and the courts believe they are and apparently subject to change without notice. All you have to do is read any paper on any given day to realize this is true.

Quote:

No, Mrgone is our local left-collectivist-statist-antigunner that we occasionally deign to respond to.

And UN spokesman. Why do you people even bother?

Quote:

In this EVERY case, he's attempting to set up the strawman

(see his rants on global warming, peak oil and just about every leftist theory dished out on TF. It's all the same)

Quote:

The bottom line is that the “right to bear arms” like all other “rights” in this country, are actually more like strong suggestions. They are only rights to the degree that the rest of us and the courts believe they are and apparently subject to change without notice. All you have to do is read any paper on any given day to realize this is true.

I don't often agree with Mrgone, but I have to say I agree with his thoughts on this thread.

Quote:

... “rights” in this country, are actually more like strong suggestions.

Don't fall for it, Landshark. Read it outloud until you hear it. It's what leftists do when attacking to US Constitution - a document they think is outdated. The right is not a 'suggestion'. It's written in stone. Period. In the Chicago case, this is the argument used in the 5-4 decision that allowed a man to keep a gun in his home for self-protection.

Your rights are not 'suggestions'. Period.

Is your 'right' to free speech a 'suggestion'? Is your right to unlawful search and seizure a 'suggestion'?

Case closed.

Rights are not granted by a document.

They are either recognized or abrogated, but they are not granted, as they do not belong to the government to grant.

If you do not understand this, then you should not have graduated in High School, where it is presumed you actually learned what's written in The Declaration.

Quote:

Don't fall for it, Landshark. Read it outloud until you hear it. It's what leftists do when attacking to US Constitution - a document they think is outdated. The right is not a 'suggestion'. It's written in stone. Period. In the Chicago case, this is the argument used in the 5-4 decision that allowed a man to keep a gun in his home for self-protection.

Your rights are not 'suggestions'. Period.

Is your 'right' to free speech a 'suggestion'? Is your right to unlawful search and seizure a 'suggestion'?

Case closed.

Is it now?

http://www.oregoncommentator.com/2011/05....

I do not advocate this position as is suggested, I do however have the ability to see what is actually happening. You may choose to believe in anything you wish but facts are what they are. I think I have captured the facts as they stand.

edit:

Quote:

Your facts are Looney Tunes - sorry, bud. Think all you want in that twisted-leftist brain. Want my guns? Come get em', SCOTUS, Constitution or not.

You don't seem to get it do you? They already have your guns, at least any that matter.

Oh, I understand it, Karl, but I'll be damned if someone is going to use a document to say my right is a 'suggestion' - which is exactly what SCOTUS did in the Chicago case. That's the difference. Fine line.

And if the Supremes voted 1 vote the other way and denied that with a rubber stamp, I still have that 'right' to protect myself. No one has the right to take that away, document or court decision.

You only have the rights you're willing to defend.

And if you didn't advocate it, stop quoting your facts Mrgone. It's a strawman from the start, which is exactly why you linked that horse****.

Quote:

I think I have captured the facts as they stand.

Your facts are Looney Tunes - sorry, bud. Think all you want in that twisted-leftist brain. Want my guns? Come get em', SCOTUS, Constitution or not.

Ah , not trying to hijack the thread here but I have what I believe is an important point about owning a gun to protect yourself. Yes, you have the right to protect yourself against an individual attack against you and :


The right to own a gun is not only a right to protect yourself from some foreign force but rather a right to protect yourself from your own government if it deteriorates.

I dont wanna fight a tank with a pitchfork and a baseball bat if necessary. ( Reference : the Prague Spring and current day middle east situations )

The Founders knew that power corrupts and the possibility that power would corrupt here too. ( and it has )

Just sayin'.

Two points:

1. The "allowable weapons" issue is problematic, and previous discussion demonstrates this.

It is inescapable fact that if one proceeds from the assumption that the right to keep and bear arms is intended to allow, in extremis, the overthrow of a tyrannical gov't, then the arms kept and borne by the citizens must be sufficient to accomplish that task. Thus, I don't see how a limitation of the nature of such arms can be specified, given the unlimited nature of the "arms" available to gov't.

On the other hand, no restrictions of any kind on anyone having nukes and bio-weapons make no sense to me, either.

I see no good solution - if there's a limit, then the ability to overthrow a tyrannical gov't is not assured; if there's no limit, we can have "accidents" wipe out a significant part of the country. Not addressing this issue in the platform is a weakness that is likely to be exploited by the anti-2nd Amendment types, but I don't have a good answer to this.

2. Gen - Not all history bears out your 1% number. Consider the US Civil War. The total population of the US (Union plus Confederacy) was ~31 million, while estimates for the size of the Confederate armies (arguably all members of whom were willing to die in opposition to the Union) range between 750K and 1 million, which puts the "willing to die" percentage close to 3%.

I would suggest that that demonstrates that so long as the strength of the forces on the side of a gov't (tyrannical or not - I don't want to rehash the causes of that war) exceed those who are opposed AND the gov't has no compunction against exterminating the opposing forces and their supporters, the gov't can maintain its power.

The wording is clear, the founders knew what they were talking about. They chose the lesser of two evils.

Nukes and Bio weapons bring up a different topic. Sanity, I say get rid of all of the wmd. Not only do I not want them but I would rather die myself than use them. Maybe its character or defect, Banning a weapon is only going to work if everyone is held to the same standard. If our government sold one to my enemies I should be able to get one too. I say set the bar high and level.

Laws are best kept simple. Me.

Given the position, if there are T-shirts, they should be sleeveless.

Mrgone,

You are claiming that the theft of my rights by the fools surrounding me IS what defines my 'inalienable' rights only 'described' in the Constitution.

You then further claim that because 'NOW' we don't have the martial might of our Orwellian govt (thanks to previous generations of #^$% American pikers), the 2A was not intended for martial purposes.

It is so very bloody simple:
No one wants to admit that life in the early years of the nation is where we look to see what was intended. They would have stopped it if they didn't like it.

The 2A was intended for MrGone to carry his privately owned military rifle past his privately owned military cannon on his privately owned porch to the docks where his privately owned battleship floated containing his privately owned explosives.

The proper hooligan DNA of our ancestors hasn't been in the gene pool for two hundred years. So, largely this argument is merely academic.

Quote:

The bottom line is that the “right to bear arms” like all other “rights” in this country, are actually more like strong suggestions. They are only rights to the degree that the rest of us and the courts believe they are and apparently subject to change without notice. All you have to do is read any paper on any given day to realize this is true.

Quote:

The proper hooligan DNA of our ancestors hasn't been in the gene pool for two hundred years. So, largely this argument is merely academic.

Sad but true, and intentional.

"He who rocks the cradle, rules the world"

Quote:

Gen - Not all history bears out your 1% number. Consider the US Civil War. The total population of the US (Union plus Confederacy) was ~31 million, while estimates for the size of the Confederate armies (arguably all members of whom were willing to die in opposition to the Union) range between 750K and 1 million, which puts the "willing to die" percentage close to 3%.

A considerable fraction of that 3% were conscripts, which do not count as "willing". In addition, southerners were not struggling to to change their government; they already had a functional new government when the hostilities started.

-Uwe-

All anyone has to do is to READ each State constitution(s) regarding the right to bear arms. Specifically the original 13 colonies.

There is no mistaking what they meant when they wrote them.

Game over.