• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How would you amend the second amendment?

Undesired Walrus said:
For those who would want to, of course.

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.

Or will anyone make the interesting argument that it actually compatible with gun control laws?
Click to expand...

rocket launchers are mandatory for all households, and screw the liberals who will cry about it.
 
Rocket launchers are legal in the USA in some states, but there is only one person on this forum trying to convince us that they are not. :)

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
Rocket launchers are legal in the USA in some states, but there is only one person on this forum trying to convince us that they are not. :)
Click to expand...
What sorts of rockets are they allowed to launch? Do they seriously allow people to have a weapon that could take down a plane or helicopter? If so, I have a little problem with that.
 
Tricky said:
If so, I have a little problem with that.
Click to expand...

The problem you should be having is that you made a claim that you had no rational reason to believe. When called on it you could not be bothered to back it up with any evidence.

Tricky said:
What sorts of rockets are they allowed to launch?
Click to expand...

Check out http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf Any rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces is a destructive device. DD's are permitted to be possessed by anyone who pays the $200 tax to make or transfer them; similar to the mufflers that you were speaking of earlier.

Tricky said:
Do they seriously allow people to have a weapon that could take down a plane or helicopter?
Click to expand...

It appears so. So why is it that no one seems to be demonstrating a willingness to use them in that manner here?

Ranb
 
Last edited:
By the way, here's something for those who argue that the right to keep and bear (i.e., possess and carry) applies only to the National Guard:...
...
US Constitution
Article I...
Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to...
...
...
...
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water...
...

A letter or marque is a notice of authorization from a government to the owner of a warship to make war in the name of that government. Sir Frances Drake, for example, operated under a secret letter of marque from the British government. A letter of marque makes the difference between a privateer and a pirate. Full auto? Hell, the people who wrote the US Constitution expected that private citizens would own warships.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
...
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water...
...

A letter or marque is a notice of authorization from a government to the owner of a warship to make war in the name of that government. Sir Frances Drake, for example, operated under a secret letter of marque from the British government. A letter of marque makes the difference between a privateer and a pirate. Full auto? Hell, the people who wrote the US Constitution expected that private citizens would own warships.
Click to expand...



Sweet... can I get a Vulcan from an A-10 mounted on my little RV?

Hell... they're really just road going boats after all.


<damn... too lazy to find a good gunnin' smilie>


:)
 
Last edited:
Snide said:
I'd like it to read as an actual sentence, so its interpretation is unambiguous.

Depending on what it is supposed to mean, it could read, for example:

"Largely because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

This means that while a well-regulated militia was factored into the reasoning, the people can bear arms for whatever reason they wish.

Or how about this ?:

"For the sole purpose of 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."

Totally different rule.

There are other possibilities, too. It was a poorly-worded sentence.
Click to expand...

I think it is framed the way it is for many reasons:

- the idea that a militia rather than a standing army would provide for the defense of the country, each state at the time would have the ability to disagree with the feds and each other. It would take a majority of the states to enter a military conflict. Large standing armies were a way of controlling the population and quelling insurrection, they wanted a more plural government

- there is a history of controlling arms to disenfranchise a population. So having an armed population helps prevent the ruling class from over whelming the others. It prevents the monied, high population states from dominating the others.

- the third amendment point to this as well, one way for the government of dominating population is to occupy their land and have the army dispossess them of food and shelter, so this helps prevent Governors and petty tyrants as well as national tyrants.
 
Dancing David said:
So where is that in the 2nd amendment?
Click to expand...
It's right next to the section that makes abortion a right.

I had no idea you were a Constitutional literalist DD. Nothing in there about the right to have an air force either, and it clearly says Congress has the right to "coin" money, so paper money is illegal.
 
Dancing David said:
I think it is framed the way it is for many reasons:

- the idea that a militia rather than a standing army would provide for the defense of the country
Click to expand...
At the time of the enactment of the Second Amendment, the United States already had a standing army. It had already been determined that militia were insufficient to protect the frontier. The idea was definitely not that militia would substitute as a standing army. That is a myth.

Which is not to say that militia were unimportant. The States used the militia as what are essentially State troopers. But nobody thought that militia could or would stand up to the federal government.

The Second Amendment was important for maintaining militia without interference from the federal government, but not because that militia was intended to serve as an army. If the American Revolution taught Americans any military lessons, one of the most important ones was that militiamen fought lousy wars. The Americans didn't really start winning the war until Washington was able to train those militiamen formally and turn them into actual soldiers.
 
marksman said:
It's apt. Similarly, after the Revolution, armed militiamen were able to foment the Shays Rebellion, Whiskey Insurrection, and the Fries's Rebellion. And yet, despite these contemporary examples of armed militiamen rising up against the federal government, the right of the people to bear arms was still felt to be important enough to enshrine in the Bill of Rights.

Firearms can be used to oppose tyranny as well as to foment insurrection. The line between the two is thin. Your ally against tyranny today could be trying to foment insurrection against you tomorrow.

To wit: Daniel Shays fought at the battles of Bunker Hill, Lexington and Saratoga in the American Revolution, and was highly decorated. In 1783, he then led a rebellion against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts due to the treatment of veterans driven into debt due to their service. His rebellion was routed by... you guessed it... militia.

In 1794, the Whiskey Rebellion, led in part by James McFarlane, a Revolutionary War veteran in opposition to federal whiskey taxes. He was opposed and defeated by... again... militia, including one John Fries, another Revolutionary War veteran, who four years later led his own rebellion against a federal real estate tax and, ironically, the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Notwithstanding these semi-regular armed insurrections by militiamen using their own arms, the Second Amendment was enacted and nobody ever thought that these rebellions were sufficient cause to revoke them.

At the time, it should be noted, the United States had created a standing army... the Legion of the United States, which, during the War of 1812, morphed into the United States Army. So, in theory, the federal government was no longer relying on militia to defend itself. In fact, the Legion was created specifically because it became clear that local militia were incapable of protecting the frontier, and a professional army was necessary.
Click to expand...
Can I ask, which century would you actually like to live in? ;)
 
For any arguing that having an armed population is important to stop the state being able to take away your rights, how you respond to the following hypothetical:

The US government could (hypothetical, remember) "amend" the 2nd amendment. Would you expect US gun owners to defend themselves with violence against the government's edict?
 
Dancing David said:
I think it is framed the way it is for many reasons:

- the idea that a militia rather than a standing army would provide for the defense of the country, each state at the time would have the ability to disagree with the feds and each other. It would take a majority of the states to enter a military conflict. Large standing armies were a way of controlling the population and quelling insurrection, they wanted a more plural government

- there is a history of controlling arms to disenfranchise a population. So having an armed population helps prevent the ruling class from over whelming the others. It prevents the monied, high population states from dominating the others.

- the third amendment point to this as well, one way for the government of dominating population is to occupy their land and have the army dispossess them of food and shelter, so this helps prevent Governors and petty tyrants as well as national tyrants.
Click to expand...
You may very well be right. My only point is that we really can't tell by a simple reading of it, in large part because its syntax wouldn't get by a seventh grade English teacher's red pen.
 
WildCat said:
It's right next to the section that makes abortion a right.

I had no idea you were a Constitutional literalist DD. Nothing in there about the right to have an air force either, and it clearly says Congress has the right to "coin" money, so paper money is illegal.
Click to expand...

No I asked where in the amendment, it states what Prey said. His statement is a consequence, not in the amendment.
 
One further note; The cannon that "warships" would have had in the 1790s would have been smoothbore muzzle-loaders with black powder charges.

You can legally own these and in many state there isn't even an FOID needed for that class of weapon.

BREECH-loading cannon of any sort are classified as "destructive devices" and you need to register with ATF. However a rifled muzzle-loader is still OK.

Want to buy a cannon?

http://cannonsuperstore.com/reenactors.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom