|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 11:58 AM EST |
were, at the time, the new-technology weapons of mass destruction, the likes of
which the world had never seen. New techniques of rapid reloading made the
British rifle regiments into killing machines on a previously unimaginable
scale.
Then, the colonists developed strategies with which they could butcher the
British en masse, by completely abandoning "civilized" warfare and
shooting from ambush.
No, these statements were not made from a position of "... as long as
weapons are not *too* destructive."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 12:27 PM EST |
Back in the day, you actually could own your own cannons, or warships, or
whatever. There was nothing stopping you if you had the means to buy them.
The average citizen couldn't afford them...much like now we can't afford f-16's
or tanks.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kilz on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 01:19 PM EST |
the world we live in is quite different
technologically as well as
politically.
Trying to limit the rights we all enjoy to only old
technology is a slippery slope I would rather we all not go
down.
Taking
the logic behind it. The Freedom of the Press would
be in danger. Back when the
freedom of the press was written
it referred to a group of people who would use
type and a
printing press to publish news. Shall we now limit that
freedom
only to printed materials? I dont think so.
But following the logic that the
founding fathers never
dreamed the progress of technology in arms. They surly
couldnt foresee the computer and the internet....
Can you see where
this is leading? Its only one
example. Lets stay off this slope ok?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 03:06 PM EST |
Huhhhh!!!???
I know we had a bit of trouble between our legislature and monarchy, but ELECTED
government in England predates the Norman Conquest, and the English Civil War
was down to conflict between the ELECTED government and the monarchy.
Oh - and that civil war was fought over a hundred years before American
Independence.
I know every country likes to claim they invented everything, but COME ON HERE -
you were more than half a millenia late to the party!
(Oh, and I think we were late to the party too - I believe the
longest-in-existence elected governing body also predates the founding of
"modern" England.)
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: myNym on Thursday, December 27 2012 @ 10:14 PM EST |
First of all, the SCOTUS recently (in 2009) found in Heller
that:
"... the Second Amendment protects an individual right to
possess a gun unconnected with service in a militia, and to
use the gun for traditionally lawful purposes, such as in
the home for self defense."
But even if they hadn't, what exactly did "well-regulated
milita" mean?
George Mason, the founding father who wrote the Virginia
Declaration of Rights in 1776, and who was instrumental in
getting the Bill of Rights added to the US constitution,
defines "militia" thusly:
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people,
except for a few public officials." -- George Mason, 3
Elliot, Debates at 425-426.
As for "well-regulated".. Per Oxford English Dictionary
(O.E.D.), 2nd ed. (1989) v.XX p. 138, you will find the
following usages:
(1709) "well-regulated Appetites"
(1714) "well regulated courts of justice"
(1812) "well-regulated clock, and a true sun-dial"
In the vernacular of the time, it meant something akin to
being regular, balanced, and fine-tuned.
Put it all together, in the context of the Second Amendment,
a "well-regulated militia" is an armed populace that is able
to apply steady and even pressure, by virtue of having had
plenty of opportunity to practice with their own firearms.
The reader may wish to ask, well, if that's what those words
mean, then why are some people claiming it means something
else? Why are they claiming the Second Amendment has
something to do with the National Guard?
Why indeed, Virginia. Why indeed.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
