Re: Scare of the day...

In <c520c3db-ece0-447e-b31b-376d4df85a50@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Richard Henry wrote:
On Jun 27, 4:38 pm, James Arthur <bogusabd...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
In article <48654A4D.99415...@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Eeyore wrote:

MK wrote:

Come on James -  at least quote the whole sentance:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Indeed. Militia. Since when were individual gun owners part of any militia ?
Or indeed well-regulated.

Graham

  Go back to the "Founding Fathers" days.

  A "well regulated militia" is quite arguable a wel-equipped one.

  Also, the militia that was armed to fight for freedom was not
necessarily regulated by or even working for the government, but was
sometimes an independent one that was armed and prepared to consider the
government its enemy.

The founders' Militia _were_ the people. The Militia
were all the citizens who could unite under arms
to respond to crisis. As they did for the Revolution.

E.g., the Minutemen.  Ordinary citizens, of no
special qualification or training, nor membership
in any government-sanctioned group, with their own
weapons, ready to spring in defense of their
communities and nation.

Obviously, these could never existed, nor could the
Revolution have ever taken place if the citizens did
not have arms.

Later, James Madison argued quite openly (Federalist
46, 1788) that, though European governments were
afraid to trust their people with arms, the American
people need not fear a like tyranny from the proposed
new Republic because, unlike Europe, an armed American
populace would provide such a great deterrent--possibly
even an absolute protection--against an unjust government.

So, Madison envisioned a populace that was armed,
even possibly armed in opposition to their government,
and assumed this in proposing the new republic.  He
figured it'd keep the new government in check.

Which it has.  Even today, cops think twice before
rushing into someone's house.  They get warrants,
and they make plans first.

  As a result, I would think that the 2nd Amendment supposts Americans
having all the tanks, 20 and 30 mm gatling guns, .50 caliber large rifles
(even full auto ones), larger artillery, missiles, aerial bombs, fighter
and bomber aircraft, PT boats and submarines and destroyers and cruisers
and battleships and aircraft carriers that they want and can afford!

It's been opined by the District of Columbia Circuit Court
of Appeals that it's reasonable to assume the framers' intent
was limited to weapons of that day.

I have no opinion; I haven't considered it well enough.

So everyone is limited to single-shot muskets and handguns?

I would think closer to limiting to weapons that people would not keep
in home and carry out of home except when being obviously hunting or
defending their freedom.

Although I recently previously proposed allowing band on everything
under .50 caliber and worth firing if of length 399 mm or shorter, I am
now in a fair mood to allow also shotguns of 12-16 gauge and .30-06,
..30-30 and .223 rifles as well as everything reasonably worth calling an
"elephant gun".
I don't like hunting, but it appears to me that fighting hunting in
America even nowadays is far from a well-chosen battle.
Sometimes I think that those holding up check cashing joints with
sawed-off shotguns and (less common) sawed-down .30-06 rifles are better
controlled by crime control means rather than gun control means.

However, I would like to limit weapon ownership to be in the *bigger*
side of wherever a line gets to be drawn. Common criminals mostly carry
handguns. Less-common more-brazen criminals carry smaller-size semi-auto
and full-auto guns along the lines of mac-10's and Uzis, or sawed-down
hunting firearms. People defend their homes well with full-length hunting
weapons, as well as anything they generally don't get arrested for having
unless they commit wrongdoing that causes a warrant to be issued (or
outright cause for immediate arrest).
One's home is one's castle. Should I have an AK-47 at home, I feel
reasonably safe from getting in trouble from having it unless I actually
do criminal wrongdoing with it.
(Should I use my supposed AK-47 to keep myself from being murdered by an
armed burglar, I would prefer to live in an area where most jurors would
not uphold a criminal charge against me resulting from the police finding
such a machine within my home while my home was being an actively
police-investigated crime scene.
One thing resulting from this is that I regularly practice (along
with some martial arts training, namely Tae Kwan Do karate to a basic
"yellow belt" level) aiming and throwing largish power transformers.
Transformers to use as human-thrown missiles have low
regulation/restriction by law, but are not quite as effective as
lead-throwing shooting irons against home intruders and street robbers,
and are a lot less effective than "Vulcan" high speed 20 and 30 mm
"gatling guns" against what a "well regulated" (even well-equipped)
"militia" would fight against.)

--

- Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: If Obama Supports The Second Amendment....
    ... Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the ... politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. ... "But we need not give them power to abolish our militia. ... disallow the militia to provide arms for themselves should both the federal ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A well regulated militia or any individual
    ... The rest of us see "the right to keep and bear arms ... not intended to be the ONLY reason they believed the right to bear ... Why are the words "well regulated militia" included in the Second ... government of limited and enumerated powers. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A well regulated militia or any individual
    ... The rest of us see "the right to keep and bear arms ... Why are the words "well regulated militia" included in the Second ... government of limited and enumerated powers. ... met and the gun control laws of DC fail to meet any of those standards. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A well regulated militia or any individual
    ... The rest of us see "the right to keep and bear arms ... Why are the words "well regulated militia" included in the Second ... government of limited and enumerated powers. ... Gun regulation in itself does not have to negate the communities ability ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A well regulated militia or any individual
    ... The rest of us see "the right to keep and bear arms ... not intended to be the ONLY reason they believed the right to bear ... government of limited and enumerated powers. ... Personal gun ownership to keep the government under control is like the ...
    (talk.politics.guns)