eye95
Well-known member
imported post
smttysmth02gt wrote:
smttysmth02gt wrote:
My comments consider the 2A, but are in re the OP.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Where is the line drawn?
- Thread starter ABNinfantryman
- Start date
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
imported post
eye95 wrote:
"When you examine how the 2A came about, the line is apparent. At the time, the founders were trying to allow people to protect themselves, to hunt, and to band together to fight off enemies. Clearly, the arms being borne were typical to hunting and self-defense that could also, in a pinch, be use in a military situation. In the late 18th century, that typically would have been a musket. Today, it would be a rifle, a shotgun, or a handgun. Semi-automatic capability is reasonable. Automatic capability is understandably arguable.
Stated simply, the arms of the 2A are everyday arms that could be used by a soldier in a pinch.
I hope the person advocating nukes was being ironic. That kind of fails the everyday test."
Now..............I am done with the he said/she said stuff. I've already said what I have to say about the 2A. If you don't believe me or still disagree, then you've evidently got some history to get caught up on, or you're allowing your own personal bias to override reality.
eye95 wrote:
If you'll kindly notice where my first post in this thread was. It was directed at this comment you made, in reference to the intent and origin of the 2A:
"When you examine how the 2A came about, the line is apparent. At the time, the founders were trying to allow people to protect themselves, to hunt, and to band together to fight off enemies. Clearly, the arms being borne were typical to hunting and self-defense that could also, in a pinch, be use in a military situation. In the late 18th century, that typically would have been a musket. Today, it would be a rifle, a shotgun, or a handgun. Semi-automatic capability is reasonable. Automatic capability is understandably arguable.
Stated simply, the arms of the 2A are everyday arms that could be used by a soldier in a pinch.
I hope the person advocating nukes was being ironic. That kind of fails the everyday test."
Now..............I am done with the he said/she said stuff. I've already said what I have to say about the 2A. If you don't believe me or still disagree, then you've evidently got some history to get caught up on, or you're allowing your own personal bias to override reality.
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
imported post
Super double posting action......because I rock.
Super double posting action......because I rock.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
smttysmth02gt wrote:
That's twice you've sarcastically insulted me. I'm done with you.
You need to learn to have an adult conversation. (No sarcasm there. That is my straight up judgment of you.)
smttysmth02gt wrote:
That's twice you've sarcastically insulted me. I'm done with you.
You need to learn to have an adult conversation. (No sarcasm there. That is my straight up judgment of you.)
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
imported post
eye95 wrote:
eye95 wrote:
Sorry dude...just stating my opinion here (I re-read my post several times and failed to find any intentional insults). If you will do some reading like I said, you'll see what I was talking about throughout all of those different posts. Nothing non-adult about anything I've said...just my opinion (and that of the founders). No need in getting offended. Just one man's opinion on the discussion.
ABNinfantryman
Regular Member
imported post
45acpForMe wrote:
As to the OP though, I would say the line is drawn at any weapon which is inherently indiscriminate in it's destruction that no individual has the capability to reasonably mitigate the damage to life, limb,or property through effective targeting, i.e. biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons.
45acpForMe wrote:
This right here is why I'm against private ownership of WMDs. It's not going to be the militia or you or me who are going to own them but those that would use them to enslave the people through fear of destruction by the very existence of the weapons. There is no middle ground with nuclear weapons, either everyone has them or no one does so everyone is on equal ground. So there's the question, does the government start handing out 300 million nukes to the people or does it violate the rights of the people and deny them from everyone? Then the question is should there be an organization outside of the government which works as a check against them to ensure their use strictly on foreign enemies and not used against the people? I would vote for the latter personally.
As to the OP though, I would say the line is drawn at any weapon which is inherently indiscriminate in it's destruction that no individual has the capability to reasonably mitigate the damage to life, limb,or property through effective targeting, i.e. biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons.
rodbender
Regular Member
imported post
All hand held muskets and pistols were refered to as firearms in the late 18th century. The word "arms" was used to refer to all weapons of all types. Hence "the right to keep and bear arms" in 2A.
'nuff said
All hand held muskets and pistols were refered to as firearms in the late 18th century. The word "arms" was used to refer to all weapons of all types. Hence "the right to keep and bear arms" in 2A.
'nuff said
Felid`Maximus
Activist Member
imported post
If you truly wanted to avoid discussing fully automatics I doubt you'd keep saying how you thought the founders would disagree over them. I think they are relevant.
And what makes you so sure that firearms were the only arms protected and not edged weapons? We issued swords as late as the civil war and we still issue bayonets.
I contend that the assault rifle would be the common long arm used for hunting and self-defense (as is true in places where such guns are legal and the people are poor and cannot afford to own 20 guns for each different purpose like many of us Americans own,) if it were not for gun control, and the founders would not have had a problem with it. The second amendment doesn't say that the arms are only valid if they are optimized for hunting. We don't typically use fully automatic weapons today mainly because they are effectively banned. That was one thing that was ridiculous about the court in Heller. Although they didn't rule on machine-guns they basically suggested that the second amendment was to protect arms in common use and that full-autos weren't in common use, but neglected that it was because they were banned that they were not commonly used. If they used the same logic and handguns were regulated the same way machine-guns are they probably would have come to the conclusion that pistols are not protected since they wouldn't be commonly used by law-abiding people if they were banned.
Where indigenous people own arms in the middle east and Africa, they often tend to be AK47. In the early 30's and late 20's Thompson's were also quite popular.
I believe your idea that they only wanted "sporting arms" and would reject firearms that have the ability to fire fast is contrary to what they actually said about the right to keep and bear arms.
Why would they oppose fully-automatic firearms? There is no logical reason for someone to oppose civilian ownership. The only reason people oppose it today is because Hollywood has told them they are evil. It's not like a full-auto AK would be any more devastating to a crowd than a semi-auto. You could probably kill more helpless people putting 30 rounds into 30 people than putting 5-15 rounds into 2-5 people. Full auto would be more effective however for the military reasons that fully-automatic fire is useful. (For instance, pumping many rounds as quickly as possible at close range into another armed person to take them out before they can pump rounds into you, or for suppressive fire use.)
I still contend that banning civilian ownership of assault rifles is like the founders banning flintlocks and saying that they could still use matchlocks. The founders were not fans of a police state that actively regulated the details of people's lives and didn't give the Federal Government the power to even ban anything to begin with. They also did not like the idea of a standing army. The federal government has warped the interstate commerce clause to state that they can ban personal possession of arms.
Back in the day rich people owned the equivalent of private battleships. While most people didn't own a cannon, some did, and the Feds back then weren't all that concerned about banning them because someone could have theoretically turned into a crazy cannon crook. With a private battle ship you could sink another ship and probably cause more loss of life than ownership of small arms today is likely to cause. Even today private terrorists have found more effective ways to cause mass-destruction than the use of small arms. Timothy McVeigh, who created explosives from fertilizer, has a higher death count than any mass-shooter. Terrorists with box-cutters hijacked a few planes and killed way more than him. People do terrible things and legislating away possession of weapons does little to stop them. If people could own battleships, and they can buy fertilizer, why can't they own a machine-gun?
If you truly wanted to avoid discussing fully automatics I doubt you'd keep saying how you thought the founders would disagree over them. I think they are relevant.
And what makes you so sure that firearms were the only arms protected and not edged weapons? We issued swords as late as the civil war and we still issue bayonets.
I contend that the assault rifle would be the common long arm used for hunting and self-defense (as is true in places where such guns are legal and the people are poor and cannot afford to own 20 guns for each different purpose like many of us Americans own,) if it were not for gun control, and the founders would not have had a problem with it. The second amendment doesn't say that the arms are only valid if they are optimized for hunting. We don't typically use fully automatic weapons today mainly because they are effectively banned. That was one thing that was ridiculous about the court in Heller. Although they didn't rule on machine-guns they basically suggested that the second amendment was to protect arms in common use and that full-autos weren't in common use, but neglected that it was because they were banned that they were not commonly used. If they used the same logic and handguns were regulated the same way machine-guns are they probably would have come to the conclusion that pistols are not protected since they wouldn't be commonly used by law-abiding people if they were banned.
Where indigenous people own arms in the middle east and Africa, they often tend to be AK47. In the early 30's and late 20's Thompson's were also quite popular.
I believe your idea that they only wanted "sporting arms" and would reject firearms that have the ability to fire fast is contrary to what they actually said about the right to keep and bear arms.
Why would they oppose fully-automatic firearms? There is no logical reason for someone to oppose civilian ownership. The only reason people oppose it today is because Hollywood has told them they are evil. It's not like a full-auto AK would be any more devastating to a crowd than a semi-auto. You could probably kill more helpless people putting 30 rounds into 30 people than putting 5-15 rounds into 2-5 people. Full auto would be more effective however for the military reasons that fully-automatic fire is useful. (For instance, pumping many rounds as quickly as possible at close range into another armed person to take them out before they can pump rounds into you, or for suppressive fire use.)
I still contend that banning civilian ownership of assault rifles is like the founders banning flintlocks and saying that they could still use matchlocks. The founders were not fans of a police state that actively regulated the details of people's lives and didn't give the Federal Government the power to even ban anything to begin with. They also did not like the idea of a standing army. The federal government has warped the interstate commerce clause to state that they can ban personal possession of arms.
Back in the day rich people owned the equivalent of private battleships. While most people didn't own a cannon, some did, and the Feds back then weren't all that concerned about banning them because someone could have theoretically turned into a crazy cannon crook. With a private battle ship you could sink another ship and probably cause more loss of life than ownership of small arms today is likely to cause. Even today private terrorists have found more effective ways to cause mass-destruction than the use of small arms. Timothy McVeigh, who created explosives from fertilizer, has a higher death count than any mass-shooter. Terrorists with box-cutters hijacked a few planes and killed way more than him. People do terrible things and legislating away possession of weapons does little to stop them. If people could own battleships, and they can buy fertilizer, why can't they own a machine-gun?
Felid`Maximus
Activist Member
imported post
At the very least, if individual soldiers are entrusted to a weapon, that weapon should also be entrusted to a citizen.
At the very least, if individual soldiers are entrusted to a weapon, that weapon should also be entrusted to a citizen.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
rodbender wrote:
rodbender wrote:
Source?
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
imported post
What a few people are forgetting here, is the purposeful intent of ambiguity contained in the Bill of Rights. Said ambiguity is not an accident. There are specific, and well thought out reasons that the framers worded the document as such. In fact, let's take a good look at some of that commentary:
Thomas Jefferson -
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
What does this mean?
I am happy you asked!
The interpretation is very clear, and the amount of thought dedicated to the BoR is absolutely phenomenal and done with so much research by individuals who even by todays standards are highly educated (maybe better educated than some?).
Arms, means "arms". Arms does not have a specific categorization. Arms does not just refer to rifles that are meant for hunting, and certainly any well educated individual who has actually studied the works of the framers, would see that as it is, an outright falsity.
I want to post another quote by Jefferson, which I find to be most interesting, if not on topic:
Thomas Jefferson -
"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for[ another]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."
I digress back to the topic of the 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment is clearly meant to be understood on its face. Any argument towards regulation, or stipulation of individual rights, is quite simply, support of tyranny. There is no argument one can make to justify the interpretation to mean that there is governmental precedence over the 2nd Amendment, without patently stating they do not trust the common man and want to exercise some form of virtual leash by legal proxy.
One can also not pick at the 2nd Amendment, attempting to speculate, and then apply said wanton speculation as fact, without violating the very term "try not what meaning may be squeezed out of the text.". It is comical to see people try to use the "Well, they had muskets and flintlocks then, so that's all we should be allowed to have!".
Ladies and gentlemen the 2nd Amendment is not time-period centric. It's purpose is well outlined by simply studying the framers, and has even been stated outright in modern cases (Suzanna Gratia Hupp for example) de facto to members of our government.
Like it or not, it is meant to be literally taken at face value.
If you feel that your life is in such peril that you can't live next to your neighbor without fallaciously attempting to assure that they cannot defend themselves, I might question your frame of mind, as it sounds an awful lot like the mind of a criminal or tyrant, who wants to make sure the "subordinates" go down quietly, and without a fight. If you attribute varying degrees of lethality to a firearm, you are likewise ignorant. The most common rounds for firearms related deaths in this nation are not 7.62x39 or .223 as fear mongers would have you believe. The two rounds most used, are some of the most stated "underpowered" rounds in existence. I will give a high five to the first person to get the two rounds correct, and then show my source.
There is no equality if you must demand that another human being give up an inalienable right, or even a portion of an inalienable right, just to make you feel better, because you have security issues.
I find it hilarious that a great many, and yes, even a few on this forum, get all high and mighty about how they are "pro-2nd amendment and RTKBA", then expose their other face in vilifying a person for carrying a firearm they "don't think is ok".
Absolutely hilarious.
What a few people are forgetting here, is the purposeful intent of ambiguity contained in the Bill of Rights. Said ambiguity is not an accident. There are specific, and well thought out reasons that the framers worded the document as such. In fact, let's take a good look at some of that commentary:
Thomas Jefferson -
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
What does this mean?
I am happy you asked!
The interpretation is very clear, and the amount of thought dedicated to the BoR is absolutely phenomenal and done with so much research by individuals who even by todays standards are highly educated (maybe better educated than some?).
Arms, means "arms". Arms does not have a specific categorization. Arms does not just refer to rifles that are meant for hunting, and certainly any well educated individual who has actually studied the works of the framers, would see that as it is, an outright falsity.
I want to post another quote by Jefferson, which I find to be most interesting, if not on topic:
Thomas Jefferson -
"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for[ another]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."
I digress back to the topic of the 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment is clearly meant to be understood on its face. Any argument towards regulation, or stipulation of individual rights, is quite simply, support of tyranny. There is no argument one can make to justify the interpretation to mean that there is governmental precedence over the 2nd Amendment, without patently stating they do not trust the common man and want to exercise some form of virtual leash by legal proxy.
One can also not pick at the 2nd Amendment, attempting to speculate, and then apply said wanton speculation as fact, without violating the very term "try not what meaning may be squeezed out of the text.". It is comical to see people try to use the "Well, they had muskets and flintlocks then, so that's all we should be allowed to have!".
Ladies and gentlemen the 2nd Amendment is not time-period centric. It's purpose is well outlined by simply studying the framers, and has even been stated outright in modern cases (Suzanna Gratia Hupp for example) de facto to members of our government.
Like it or not, it is meant to be literally taken at face value.
If you feel that your life is in such peril that you can't live next to your neighbor without fallaciously attempting to assure that they cannot defend themselves, I might question your frame of mind, as it sounds an awful lot like the mind of a criminal or tyrant, who wants to make sure the "subordinates" go down quietly, and without a fight. If you attribute varying degrees of lethality to a firearm, you are likewise ignorant. The most common rounds for firearms related deaths in this nation are not 7.62x39 or .223 as fear mongers would have you believe. The two rounds most used, are some of the most stated "underpowered" rounds in existence. I will give a high five to the first person to get the two rounds correct, and then show my source.
There is no equality if you must demand that another human being give up an inalienable right, or even a portion of an inalienable right, just to make you feel better, because you have security issues.
I find it hilarious that a great many, and yes, even a few on this forum, get all high and mighty about how they are "pro-2nd amendment and RTKBA", then expose their other face in vilifying a person for carrying a firearm they "don't think is ok".
Absolutely hilarious.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
I'll bear in mind the broader definition of "arms" the next time I bear my howitzer into Starbucks. :what:
I'll bear in mind the broader definition of "arms" the next time I bear my howitzer into Starbucks. :what:
PrayingForWar
Founder's Club Member
imported post
slowfiveoh wrote:
slowfiveoh wrote:
.22 LR and I'll guess 9mm Luger.
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
imported post
eye95 wrote:
At school at the moment, so the comments will be more brief.
You seem pretty freaked out there about a howitzer. I would wager a good solid bet that you would not be willing to:
A.) Tow it behind your vehicle everywhere you go.
B.) Find a table large enough to seat you and your howitzer.
C.) Be able to perform all the required tasks to load and fire a howitzer in a meaningful way to facilitate personal self defense.
However, if you can do all of the former, who am I to judge? You'd have to be the worlds bestfield artillery soldierto counter the assault of even a common criminal with a pistol.
Want to open carry a howitzer? Sure bud! No problem!I don't mind at all!
In a potential world of 300 million possible open carriers, your howitzer doesn't concern me at all!
eye95 wrote:
At school at the moment, so the comments will be more brief.
You seem pretty freaked out there about a howitzer. I would wager a good solid bet that you would not be willing to:
A.) Tow it behind your vehicle everywhere you go.
B.) Find a table large enough to seat you and your howitzer.
C.) Be able to perform all the required tasks to load and fire a howitzer in a meaningful way to facilitate personal self defense.
However, if you can do all of the former, who am I to judge? You'd have to be the worlds bestfield artillery soldierto counter the assault of even a common criminal with a pistol.
Want to open carry a howitzer? Sure bud! No problem!I don't mind at all!
In a potential world of 300 million possible open carriers, your howitzer doesn't concern me at all!
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
Clever and funny.
Let me make my point without the humor.
The Founders clearly did not expect anyone to bear a cannon. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the 2A refers to weapons that were physically bearable. Let's see...that would be small arms.
Clever and funny.
Let me make my point without the humor.
The Founders clearly did not expect anyone to bear a cannon. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the 2A refers to weapons that were physically bearable. Let's see...that would be small arms.
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
imported post
eye95 wrote:
It wasn't meant to be humorous. If you want to lug around a Howitzer in the name of personal defense, I have no issues with it. If you use it in the commission of a crime, you are a criminal. If you cause massive collateral damage, you are liable, just as if a .50 round flew through an assailant, and struck a bus full of nuns lengthwise.
No worries though, there are significant levels of interaction involved with a howitzer that must be accomplished before eve nbeing able to fire it. In fact, I could safely say that for personal defense it is a poor choice, because you couldn't even aim the thing properly at your attacker, let alone fire it before you are dead.So sincerely, and by all means, lug one around if you like. Again, it doesn't bother me at all in a society of 300million+ people who can at any time (or should anyways) have the option to be armed.
I have cited a precise quote from Jefferson substantiating my commentary. As the site calls for, please cite for substantiation that the founders did in fact not intend to allow cannons to be privately owned.
If you cannot cite a meaningful reference, your entire position is emotionally derived, and complete supposition.
I have had this conversation before with an individual who comically inferred that one could not:
-Own a tank (False. Private collectors and individuals own tanks.)
-Own a modern fighter jet (False. There are two SU-27's for sale right now, and hundreds of private combat jets owned nationally. Here you go: http://www.prideaircraft.com/flanker.htm )
-etc. etc.
There is a purpose for every tool. Firearms are in fact tools. This does not mean we impede people from owning, or possessing said tools because we are "scared of them". It is not your right to subjugate others by mandating or forcing your opinion, or irrational fearupon them.
By this pretty finite logic, one could simply understand in society, that people who simply opt not to carry (well, tow anyhow) a Howitzer because of it's lack of practicality, are just making a rational decision that you did not have to force down their throats.
Again, tow around a howitzer if you like. Doesn't bother me. No joke intended.
eye95 wrote:
It wasn't meant to be humorous. If you want to lug around a Howitzer in the name of personal defense, I have no issues with it. If you use it in the commission of a crime, you are a criminal. If you cause massive collateral damage, you are liable, just as if a .50 round flew through an assailant, and struck a bus full of nuns lengthwise.
No worries though, there are significant levels of interaction involved with a howitzer that must be accomplished before eve nbeing able to fire it. In fact, I could safely say that for personal defense it is a poor choice, because you couldn't even aim the thing properly at your attacker, let alone fire it before you are dead.So sincerely, and by all means, lug one around if you like. Again, it doesn't bother me at all in a society of 300million+ people who can at any time (or should anyways) have the option to be armed.
I have cited a precise quote from Jefferson substantiating my commentary. As the site calls for, please cite for substantiation that the founders did in fact not intend to allow cannons to be privately owned.
If you cannot cite a meaningful reference, your entire position is emotionally derived, and complete supposition.
I have had this conversation before with an individual who comically inferred that one could not:
-Own a tank (False. Private collectors and individuals own tanks.)
-Own a modern fighter jet (False. There are two SU-27's for sale right now, and hundreds of private combat jets owned nationally. Here you go: http://www.prideaircraft.com/flanker.htm )
-etc. etc.
There is a purpose for every tool. Firearms are in fact tools. This does not mean we impede people from owning, or possessing said tools because we are "scared of them". It is not your right to subjugate others by mandating or forcing your opinion, or irrational fearupon them.
By this pretty finite logic, one could simply understand in society, that people who simply opt not to carry (well, tow anyhow) a Howitzer because of it's lack of practicality, are just making a rational decision that you did not have to force down their throats.
Again, tow around a howitzer if you like. Doesn't bother me. No joke intended.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
I will try one more time and then move on.
The reference is the 2A and a simple plain reading of it. The right is described as a right to keep and bear arms. So, clearly, it is referring to arms that can be borne, i.e. small arms.
Moving on.
I will try one more time and then move on.
The reference is the 2A and a simple plain reading of it. The right is described as a right to keep and bear arms. So, clearly, it is referring to arms that can be borne, i.e. small arms.
Moving on.
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
imported post
eye95 wrote:
Here is the definition of "Bear":
Wikipedia (Yeah, yeah, they suck etc.):
The right to keep and bear arms, often referred as the right to bear arms or the right to have arms, is the assertion that people have a personal right to weapons for individual use, or a collective right to bear arms in a militia, or both. In this context, "arms" refers to a variety of weapons and armor and to "bear arms" meant to wage war.[1][/suP]
The phrase "right to keep and bear arms" was first used in the text of Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Beyond the United States of America, the general concept of a right to bear arms varies widely by country, state or jurisdiction.
Merriam-Webster.com:
1 a :[/b] to move while holding up and supporting b : to be equipped or furnished with c[/b] :[/b] behave, conduct <bearing[/i] himself well> d[/b] :[/b] to have as a feature or characteristic <bears[/i] a likeness to her grandmother> e[/b] :[/b] to give as testimony <bear false witness> f[/b] :[/b] to have as an identification <bore[/i] the name of John> g[/b] :[/b] to hold in the mind or emotions <bear malice> h[/b] :[/b] disseminate i[/b] :[/b] lead, escort j[/b] :[/b] render, give2 a :[/b] to give birth to b[/b] :[/b] to produce as yield c [/i](1)[/i] :[/b] to permit growth of (2)[/i] :[/b] contain <oil-bearing[/i] shale>3 a[/b] :[/b] to support the weight of :[/b] sustain b[/b] :[/b] to accept or allow oneself to be subjected to especially without giving way <couldn't bear the pain> <I can't bear seeing you cry> c[/b] :[/b] to call for as suitable or essential <it bears[/i] watching> d[/b] :[/b] to hold above, on top, or aloft e[/b] :[/b] to admit of :[/b] allow f[/b] :[/b] assume, accept4 :[/b] thrust, pressintransitive verb[/i] 1[/b] :[/b] to produce fruit :[/b] yield2 a :[/b] to force one's way b[/b] :[/b] to extend in a direction indicated or implied c[/b] :[/b] to be situated :[/b] lie d[/b] :[/b] to become directed e[/b] :[/b] to go or incline in an indicated direction3[/b] :[/b] to support a weight or strain —often used with up[/i]4 a[/b] :[/b] to exert influence or force b[/b] :[/b] apply, pertain —often used with on[/i] or upon[/i] <facts bearing[/i] on the question>
— bear a hand[/b] :[/b] to join in and help out
— bear arms 1 : to carry or possess arms
Howitzers are certainly:
-Used to wage war
-Propped up or supported when transported
-Is certainly something one can be equipped or furnished with
I can go on and on if you like. I would say in this case you merely misdefine the term, "Bear Arms", in any century.
Also, you seem to be evading the request for a citation of the framers specifying that cannons were not included in the statement "Bear Arms" as you claim.
Can you please provide this citation, or would you rather simply "move on"?
eye95 wrote:
Here is the definition of "Bear":
Wikipedia (Yeah, yeah, they suck etc.):
The right to keep and bear arms, often referred as the right to bear arms or the right to have arms, is the assertion that people have a personal right to weapons for individual use, or a collective right to bear arms in a militia, or both. In this context, "arms" refers to a variety of weapons and armor and to "bear arms" meant to wage war.[1][/suP]
The phrase "right to keep and bear arms" was first used in the text of Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Beyond the United States of America, the general concept of a right to bear arms varies widely by country, state or jurisdiction.
Merriam-Webster.com:
1 a :[/b] to move while holding up and supporting b : to be equipped or furnished with c[/b] :[/b] behave, conduct <bearing[/i] himself well> d[/b] :[/b] to have as a feature or characteristic <bears[/i] a likeness to her grandmother> e[/b] :[/b] to give as testimony <bear false witness> f[/b] :[/b] to have as an identification <bore[/i] the name of John> g[/b] :[/b] to hold in the mind or emotions <bear malice> h[/b] :[/b] disseminate i[/b] :[/b] lead, escort j[/b] :[/b] render, give2 a :[/b] to give birth to b[/b] :[/b] to produce as yield c [/i](1)[/i] :[/b] to permit growth of (2)[/i] :[/b] contain <oil-bearing[/i] shale>3 a[/b] :[/b] to support the weight of :[/b] sustain b[/b] :[/b] to accept or allow oneself to be subjected to especially without giving way <couldn't bear the pain> <I can't bear seeing you cry> c[/b] :[/b] to call for as suitable or essential <it bears[/i] watching> d[/b] :[/b] to hold above, on top, or aloft e[/b] :[/b] to admit of :[/b] allow f[/b] :[/b] assume, accept4 :[/b] thrust, pressintransitive verb[/i] 1[/b] :[/b] to produce fruit :[/b] yield2 a :[/b] to force one's way b[/b] :[/b] to extend in a direction indicated or implied c[/b] :[/b] to be situated :[/b] lie d[/b] :[/b] to become directed e[/b] :[/b] to go or incline in an indicated direction3[/b] :[/b] to support a weight or strain —often used with up[/i]4 a[/b] :[/b] to exert influence or force b[/b] :[/b] apply, pertain —often used with on[/i] or upon[/i] <facts bearing[/i] on the question>
— bear a hand[/b] :[/b] to join in and help out
— bear arms 1 : to carry or possess arms
Howitzers are certainly:
-Used to wage war
-Propped up or supported when transported
-Is certainly something one can be equipped or furnished with
I can go on and on if you like. I would say in this case you merely misdefine the term, "Bear Arms", in any century.
Also, you seem to be evading the request for a citation of the framers specifying that cannons were not included in the statement "Bear Arms" as you claim.
Can you please provide this citation, or would you rather simply "move on"?
SavageOne
Regular Member
imported post
eye95 wrote:
eye95 wrote:
If the Founding Fathers intended the common man to form militias to defend the State(even from the State) it would stand to reason someone would have to possess the field pieces that were in use even during their time.
imported post
eye95 wrote:
Hmmmm.
It should be pointed out that private ownership of cannons was quite common in the times of the Founding Fathers.
Proof? Well google for merchant sailing vessels of the period (non-government-owned) and you will notedeck cannon, gunports and swivel gunswhich were not merely decoration. No, we're not talking privateers but ships engaged in private commerce, owned by individuals, chartered companies and investor groups.
Even in England the practice of arming ships with cannons, manned by civilian crews was a commonsense issue. The East India company sailed in pirate-infested waters, slavers went inshore in Africa to capture slaves, wars were underway almost constantly somewhere so arming ships was considered "normal" in their outfitting.
American investor groups and individuals also owned and operated armed merchant vessels as a normal part of commercial operations whether a war was in progress or not. More to the point of the FF though, privately owned trading posts and fortified plantation homes along the frontiers were sometimes equipped with cannon (bass and iron) as defensive measures. As on merchant ships, swivel cannon (like over-sized shotguns) were mounted on pintle-style mounts of blockhouses and frontier fortifications. One example would be Fort Boonesborough, built privately by Daniel Boone and local settlers in 1775 which has Ball Battery marked on their plat.
So, given that the Congress was made up of prominent, well-to-do plantation owners, tradesmen and businessmen, I suspect that they would not have expressed surprise at someone going to the nearest foundry and buying a cannon.
eye95 wrote:
Hmmmm.
It should be pointed out that private ownership of cannons was quite common in the times of the Founding Fathers.
Proof? Well google for merchant sailing vessels of the period (non-government-owned) and you will notedeck cannon, gunports and swivel gunswhich were not merely decoration. No, we're not talking privateers but ships engaged in private commerce, owned by individuals, chartered companies and investor groups.
Even in England the practice of arming ships with cannons, manned by civilian crews was a commonsense issue. The East India company sailed in pirate-infested waters, slavers went inshore in Africa to capture slaves, wars were underway almost constantly somewhere so arming ships was considered "normal" in their outfitting.
American investor groups and individuals also owned and operated armed merchant vessels as a normal part of commercial operations whether a war was in progress or not. More to the point of the FF though, privately owned trading posts and fortified plantation homes along the frontiers were sometimes equipped with cannon (bass and iron) as defensive measures. As on merchant ships, swivel cannon (like over-sized shotguns) were mounted on pintle-style mounts of blockhouses and frontier fortifications. One example would be Fort Boonesborough, built privately by Daniel Boone and local settlers in 1775 which has Ball Battery marked on their plat.
So, given that the Congress was made up of prominent, well-to-do plantation owners, tradesmen and businessmen, I suspect that they would not have expressed surprise at someone going to the nearest foundry and buying a cannon.