Another counter to 2ndAmendment = Muskets?

[Member 34319]

Funny how many are turning away from voting. I'm the same. Why vote when either of the two are mere puppets. Local government is different, I follow it much closer and tend to vote a lot more on many subjects.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

All I know is if everyone who believes in the 2nd Amendment, put it as a priority when they vote, we would not have as many worries about losing gun rights as we do now.

The FACT that repeating rifles existed shuts down the "Musket Argument" about what the 2ndA meant at the time and means now. Another tool, use it!

 

[1337BaldEagle]

Saying don't vote republican OR democrat doesn't do it for me.
There needs to be a viable alternative.

"Doing nothing" accomplishes nothing, just like it always has.
When enough people on one side of the political spectrum follow that line of thinking, the other side wins.

I think that telling another person who is voting with their continence that they are "doing nothing, accomplishing nothing" with their vote is exceedingly unpatriotic. I would call the people that vote for Micky Mouse more patriotic than a person that says you have to vote for a "viable candidate or your vote doesn't do anything (paraphrasing)."

Yeah, it may be frustrating, loosing votes but loosing votes is the only way for a party to realize that they are out of touch with their constituents. Plus, I never have to say 4 years later that I was duped into voting for an bubblegum.



Eagle

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

A popular T.V. host for one political party and his slant on the subject. FFW to 1:4o if you don't want the entire anti 2nd A lecture. He sounds educated on the subject and makes some convincing arguments.

Listen how the lies roll easily off his tongue as his audience laps it all up. Then these mostly young viewers pass around the disinformation amongst themselves, reasserting the propaganda drilled into their young brains by biased professors hell bent on "fundamentally changing America" or whatever the slogan is now in 2014! They are winning people, slowly but surely, they are winning.

 

[Stomper]

Funny that... he accuses the "Republicans" of "reading the minds of the founding fathers", then turns around and does the same thing in the next sentence or two to try and push his twisted logic.

One must read the Federalist Papers to be able to "read the mindset" of the Founding Fathers in order to set the context of our Constitution, and CLEARLY Lawrence hasn't done that or most likely is just "lying to win".

 

[Martini_Up]

The Federalist Papers ought to be taught in 4th grade, 8th grade and again senior year. Every American citizen should know them well so that our history isn't twisted and morphed into the lie that so many are attempting to create.

Moreover, marginalizing our Founding Fathers because they may have owned slaves is a case of historical ethnocentrism and surly a sign that the person is also guilty of attempting to twist and morph history into something different than what it was.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

With all the revisionist History being taught nowadays, His audience probably thinks Federalist Papers are something to roll a large doobie with.

 

[The Heretic]

 

[Bacchus]

I always figure anyone who recommends not voting is a troll from DU trying to secure the next election.

 

[The Heretic]

I am not saying don't vote.

I am saying don't vote for the lesser of two evils.

I am saying think INTELLIGENTLY about who you vote for.

Don't vote for someone just because they have a better chance of winning than someone you really want in office.

I am saying vote for the person you want to win.

Generally, in my personal case, that doesn't include candidates from the Republican or Democratic parties.

I do not vote the "party line" - I vote for what I believe in, not what others believe.

Unfortunately, most people are not like me.

That is one of the reasons why I use my alias - "The Heretic".

YMMV

 

[tiggers97]

Think of it this way: If the gun-control lobby get's its way and magically turned every firearm into a single shot musket/pistol... About 90% of the gun shootings would still happen. Think about it: How many shots does a suicide take? How many accidents are more than one round? Or murders?

 

[Qjay]

That number is over 99%, including police and military shootings, to which the laws would not apply.

That said, the gun control lobby will not have gotten it's way until THEY have control of ALL the guns, and our police offices are using tasers and paintball defense rounds as their primary weapons.

 

[The Heretic]

That number is over 99%, including police and military shootings, to which the laws would not apply.

That said, the gun control lobby will not have gotten it's way until THEY have control of ALL the guns, and our police offices are using tasers and paintball defense rounds as their primary weapons.

I don't think they would try to disarm the police - the police are their enforcers and protectors - or so they think (hope).

 

[Bacchus]

Talking about hunting or suicide is an attempt to change the subject. The purpose of RKBA is to keep at bay a tyrannical government.

 

[AMProducts]

You know, I'm not necessarily sure the "keep at bay a tyrannical government" is the original intent of the 2A...

The amendment states "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."

What everyone keeps getting stuck on is the first part "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". A state is not land, or territory, it is a government. In the founder's attempt to maintain a free government (the one they had set up) a Militia, that was regulated. If we look at the definition of regulated, most of them take the modern interpretation which makes any attempt at parsing it idempotent or reflexive. But MW gives definition #2: "to bring order, method, or uniformity to". At the same time, what's the definition of "militia":
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency

b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

So, the government has set forward standards for the US military... namely, that they have M4's, ammo, magazines, and all the kit. It seems that if the "free State" was truly complying with the second amendment, they would be keeping the militia well regulated in terms of common supply, and a set of uniform training standards would be promulgated so if the country is invaded we have the ability, willingness, and training to act.

Firearms are tangible personal property, and thus subject to the 4th and 5th amendments (and others). As the high courts have also recognized personal defense as a right, enshrined within the 2nd, 13th, and have gone further and recognized firearms as a rational means to this end. Using these as justifications for firearms ownership is much stronger than the 2A, as it puts the would-be banners in the same class as muggers and thieves; depriving people of property, and at the same time eliminating the means they would use to protect themselves.

I don't know about your house, but mine has a whole bunch of things that hold it up. If the 2A is the only thing that protects gun rights, we have a serious friggin problem.

 

[AMProducts]

A popular T.V. host for one political party and his slant on the subject. FFW to 1:4o if you don't want the entire anti 2nd A lecture. He sounds educated on the subject and makes some convincing arguments.

Listen how the lies roll easily off his tongue as his audience laps it all up. Then these mostly young viewers pass around the disinformation amongst themselves, reasserting the propaganda drilled into their young brains by biased professors hell bent on "fundamentally changing America" or whatever the slogan is now in 2014! They are winning people, slowly but surely, they are winning.

So while it's a "funny" concept, what seems to go unsaid is how utterly ignorant it is of history. What I didn't notice was where his bayonet was, because engaging in close combat like that a musket is a gun, a club, a pike and a quarter staff. They wanted to focus entirely on it being a gun, likely because they don't realize that nearly everything is brimming with potential weapons. I laughed so hard when I got on an airplane the year after 9/11, and after having my cuticle scissors confiscated, I was given a champagne bottle.

The people who think that a "musket" is some kind of cute antique should spend some time on the business end of one. The musket and the long rifle were state of the art for their time, even when you extend the technology only a little bit you get to the civil war... the level of murder that happened at the end of a "single shot firearm" is no laughing matter, however it seems 150 years makes you numb to the hundreds of thousands who died in the civil war at the hands of "yesterday's technology".

 

[Stomper]

You know, I'm not necessarily sure the "keep at bay a tyrannical government" is the original intent of the 2A...

The amendment states "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."

What everyone keeps getting stuck on is the first part "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". A state is not land, or territory, it is a government. In the founder's attempt to maintain a free government (the one they had set up) a Militia, that was regulated. If we look at the definition of regulated, most of them take the modern interpretation which makes any attempt at parsing it idempotent or reflexive. But MW gives definition #2: "to bring order, method, or uniformity to". At the same time, what's the definition of "militia":
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency

b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

So, the government has set forward standards for the US military... namely, that they have M4's, ammo, magazines, and all the kit. It seems that if the "free State" was truly complying with the second amendment, they would be keeping the militia well regulated in terms of common supply, and a set of uniform training standards would be promulgated so if the country is invaded we have the ability, willingness, and training to act.

Firearms are tangible personal property, and thus subject to the 4th and 5th amendments (and others). As the high courts have also recognized personal defense as a right, enshrined within the 2nd, 13th, and have gone further and recognized firearms as a rational means to this end. Using these as justifications for firearms ownership is much stronger than the 2A, as it puts the would-be banners in the same class as muggers and thieves; depriving people of property, and at the same time eliminating the means they would use to protect themselves.

I don't know about your house, but mine has a whole bunch of things that hold it up. If the 2A is the only thing that protects gun rights, we have a serious friggin problem.

Our government is SUPPOSED to be "of the people, by the people, and FOR the people". The government isn't the "state", the PEOPLE are the state.

Never forget that.

 

[Bacchus]

I'm not necessarily sure the "keep at bay a tyrannical government" is the original intent of the 2A

It's easier to discern the intent from quotes from the Founders.

This site is pretty good:

www.guncite.com

It differentiates between true and false quotes. The author gives the source reference for the true quotes.

True quotes:

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms

-- Thomas Jefferson

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

-- James Madison

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people .

-- Tenche Coxe

The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.

-- Albert Gallatin

Clear to me, and there are lots more.

 

[Stomper]

NICE!! I just bookmarked that into my favorites.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

He's not able to date it but it looks to be another Founding Father's era repeater to me.