Shall not be infringed. Period.

JT

JT

Chair Wrangler
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Benefactor
Vendor
Life Member
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Joined
Mar 4, 2018
Messages
6,027
Location
Wilson NC
Rating - 100%
40   0   0
"You are seeing, right now in Venezuela, why the people must retain the right to keep and bear military-grade weapons, which the 2nd Amendment explicitly protects, and no citizen can permit or advocate for anything other than the full restoration of that right and demand same, backing that with whatever may become necessary.

"Yes, I do mean all of said weapons including machine guns and even bazookas -- and their modern counterparts.

"What else stops an MRAP that is running over civilians as an act of tyranny?

"No registration, no serial numbers, no tracking anything, period. Shall not be infringed. Period.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=235705
 
Last edited:
JT said:
"You are seeing, right now in Venezuela, why the people must retain the right to keep and bear military-grade weapons, which the 2nd Amendment explicitly protects, and no citizen can permit or advocate for anything other than the full restoration of that right and demand same, backing that with whatever may become necessary.

"Yes, I do mean all of said weapons including machine guns and even bazookas -- and their modern counterparts.

"What else stops an MRAP that is running over civilians as an act of tyranny?

"No registration, no serial numbers, no tracking anything, period. Shall not be infringed. Period.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=235705
Click to expand...

Ugh, that phrase “military grade”.

Like that is anything special, small arms, big arms, bear arms, fire arms.

Firearms are firearms and honestly calling it military grade is like call an AR-15 an assault rifle.

*flame on*
 
Last edited:
backwoodsshooter said:
Ugh, that phrase “military grade”.

Like that is anything special, small arms, big arms, bear arms, fire arms.

Firearms are firearms and honestly calling it military grade is like call an AR-15 an assault rifle.

*flame on*
Click to expand...

This...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
Umm...

If you read the actual writings of the founders, I think it's clear that the framers of the 2A intended that citizens should be armed as an equal to the government.

The wording that they used for the 2A, however, stymied the original intent:

"Arms" have been defined by the courts as something used by an individual (not crew-served), against an individual (not infrastructure), so massive-area weapons have been judged as outside the 2A.

"And bear" has been used by the courts to further narrow the definition. No citizen can "bear" a Polaris-submarine or an Abrams tank.

Soooo...: The original intent was that if Aliens from the planet Glorpton had dispatched their Space-Armada to dispatch you, the founders believed it to be perfectly justifiable that you should be free to dispatch your own personal Space-Armada in your defense, should you be fortunate enough to own one.

BUT... The original intent has been tempered by the very wording of the 2A as time progressed... Not saying I agree with what has happened, but that is what indeed has happened.
 
...and while I know that Original Daddy George Washington himself personally owned cannon, the law says that's ordnance, not arms, so it's generally outside of the 2A if not credentialed by "the authorities". So as much as I'd like to own a bazooka, it's already been adjudicated as a no-go for the average "Joe". Don't slag me too badly please, I'm just pointing out where the "real" starting line is regarding this stuff. If you want this fight, we're all going to have to ask ourselves just how many barrels of napalm are we comfortable with our neighbor having in his basement. How about nukes? ...and yes I do want a bazooka...
 
Last edited:
Many of the Founders thought the right to arms was so obvious that it did not need to be spelled out. Before any Amendments were adopted, the Constitution already provided for Congress to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal. And you can bet the Founders did not expect privately-owned ships to sail forth with threats painted on their sails; no, the Founders expected privately-owned and privately-armed warships to be used to fight for their country.

While the Founders' vision of the right to bear arms was far broader in scope than what is legally recognized today, they were also not in the absolute and literal "Shall not be infringed. Period." camp either. The Founders had no problem disarming people who were arrested or while they were in jail.
 
If the 2A said: "The right of the people to possess and deploy any weapon or weapons system that the government has shall not be infringed", this would be a whole lot easier.
 
Aardvark said:
If the 2A said: "The right of the people to possess and deploy any weapon or weapons system that the government has shall not be infringed", this would be a whole lot easier.
Click to expand...

That generation of esteemed Americans had just thrown off the yoke of an overbearing and meddling government far more interested in demonstrating its power than it was in protecting the Rights of Man. The Federalist No. 46 makes abundantly clear where the line exists between the Arms of the People and those of the State, and it was written before the Second Amendment was adopted because the Antifederalists were keenly aware of the nature of government.

That entire generation of Americans jealously guarded the Public Liberty and weren’t so philosophically daft and illiterate that they needed highly technical definitions to understand that they had the Right to arms without the Second, and that the Second only exists as a prohibition of State power to disarm them.
 
When trying to interpret the meaning of a word or phrase one must take into account the meaning of the word or words at the time the phrase was written.

As a glaring example most people believe that the center of Russian power is the Red Square. However, when the phrase Krasnaya Ploshad was coined the word Krasni meant beautiful in the old Russian tongue. The meaning became red and the word for beautiful became krasivui.

At the time the second was drafted arms meant anything mobile and manned which included cannons. I’ll save delving into well regulated for later.
 
It is clear, in fact it should be intuitively obvious, that the intention was that the State, at least at the federal level, not have a force dominance over the people (or States). The intent was for there to be no nationalized military.

One can even extrapolate the documents, under their original linguistic content, juxtaposed on the principle that the British troops were there, not as agents of war, but as civilian law enforcement, that having standing (state - small S this time) police were prohibited.

We’ve allowed too much creep through complacency. The question is, are we willing to go against the machine and correct it?
 
I honestly think the hand of God guided The Framers' wording of the 2A. God knew the specific wording used would narrow the meaning of the 2A as time passed, because God knew that living next to someone with his basement filled with massive area weapons would probably be a bad idea. I'd be fine with personally-owned warships and crew-served weapons, but they didn't ask me. :)

I am certainly not a Constitutional Scholar. I just think this is a fascinating discussion and I enjoy learning more about the 2A topic. I also believe this debate will certainly heat up a lot next time the bizarre new breed of AOC-types get the power to let their vacuous whims rule the day.
 
Aardvark said:
I honestly think the hand of God guided The Framers' wording of the 2A. God knew the specific wording used would narrow the meaning of the 2A as time passed, because God knew that living next to someone with his basement filled with massive area weapons would probably be a bad idea. I'd be fine with personally-owned warships and crew-served weapons, but they didn't ask me. :)

I am certainly not a Constitutional Scholar. I just think this is a fascinating discussion and I enjoy learning more about the 2A topic. I also believe this debate will certainly heat up a lot next time the bizarre new breed of AOC-types get the power to let their vacuous whims rule the day.
Click to expand...

If you want a good primer on the Second Amendment and how it's interpretation has changed over time, with cited sources (from English common law all the way through the CAETANO case), shoot me your email address in a PM. I wrote it a couple years back, it's only 20 pages long and leaves little doubt the intent behind it's inclusion.

Insofar as the Divine Hand guiding the affairs of Men, my understanding of the Almighty is He tends to be something of a literalist when it comes to the dos and the don'ts.....and the Second is a legal document with specific terms with specific definitions.

It says what it says and it doesn't say what it doesn't say.

I don't believe God relies on the fallibility and growing illiteracy of mankind as a safeguard for His Creation.
 
backwoodsshooter said:
Ugh, that phrase “military grade”.

Like that is anything special, small arms, big arms, bear arms, fire arms.

Firearms are firearms and honestly calling it military grade is like call an AR-15 an assault rifle.

*flame on*
Click to expand...

It also implies you choose your personal firearms through a rigged and crooked bidding system and then pay twice as much as the price tag.
 
I think you guys are bogging down in the weeds with nomenclature like "military grade/style." Yes, the libs use those terms with special emphasis to strike a nerve in readers/listeners, but it does still mean something (in my opinion). At least, I'd hope it refers to the fact that the gear in question was developed to meet a specific threshold (i.e. made to meet the specs outlined by the military to go to war), not commercial/consumer grade which is typically always an inferior quality. Ruggedness and reliability are often sacrificed to meet a consumer's desire for lower price.
 
backwoodsshooter said:
Ugh, that phrase “military grade”.

Like that is anything special, small arms, big arms, bear arms, fire arms.

Firearms are firearms and honestly calling it military grade is like call an AR-15 an assault rifle.

*flame on*
Click to expand...
Totally agree but sadly this is what resonates with anti or even neutral 2A folks. The all too common argument is “why do you need military weapons?”. We could answer that question 100 different ways and go all day long defending it, but others sadly need a present example thrown in their face.
 
SPM said:
That generation of esteemed Americans had just thrown off the yoke of an overbearing and meddling government far more interested in demonstrating its power than it was in protecting the Rights of Man. The Federalist No. 46 makes abundantly clear where the line exists between the Arms of the People and those of the State, and it was written before the Second Amendment was adopted because the Antifederalists were keenly aware of the nature of government.

That entire generation of Americans jealously guarded the Public Liberty and weren’t so philosophically daft and illiterate that they needed highly technical definitions to understand that they had the Right to arms without the Second, and that the Second only exists as a prohibition of State power to disarm them.
Click to expand...


OK FOLKS. The Internet is changing the meaning of federalist. The federalist supported DECENTRALIZED government. Not a strong CENTRAL government.
 
Goofyfoot2001 said:
OK FOLKS. The Internet is changing the meaning of federalist. The federalist supported DECENTRALIZED government. Not a strong CENTRAL government.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said at all.

The Federalist No. 46 specifically speaks to the individual States, along with the People and their personal Arms, being a superior force to any army that the federal government is authorized to raise.

Federalists certainly wanted consolidated, energetic central government.... certainly moreso than the Antifederalists, who preferred to settle back into the pre-Revolutionary arrangement. But not to the domineering level as it exists today.
 
Jerzsubbie said:
Totally agree but sadly this is what resonates with anti or even neutral 2A folks. The all too common argument is “why do you need military weapons?”. We could answer that question 100 different ways and go all day long defending it, but others sadly need a present example thrown in their face.
Click to expand...

The most correct answer is the Second prohibits infringement upon the Right of the People to own military weapons because the Second Amendment exists for military purposes.

It's not for hunting deer or ducks or turkey or wolves.

It's for hunting politicians, soldiers, and armies of law enforcement who, contrary to their Oaths, violate the Rights of the People - or in truth, any time the People decide to cast off one government in favor of another.

The Second has no sporting purpose - it is for a martial purpose alone that it was enumerated.

It safeguards the absolute Right to Revolution.
 
Last edited:
And yet somehow regulation has been allowed to require a sporting propose.

Me thinks some politicians don't want to acknowledge the true meaning of the 2nd. Gee, I wonder why.
 
SPM said:
That's not what I said at all.

The Federalist No. 46 specifically speaks to the individual States, along with the People and their personal Arms, being a superior force to any army that the federal government is authorized to raise.

Federalists certainly wanted consolidated, energetic central government.... certainly moreso than the Antifederalists, who preferred to settle back into the pre-Revolutionary arrangement. But not to the domineering level as it exists today.
Click to expand...

Think I still have my Anti Federalist Papers book. Older I get the smarter I think they were.
 
Anyone remember US vs Miller 1939

On March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:

  1. The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
  2. The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
  3. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
  4. The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.
Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.[4] Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered.

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice McReynolds, held:

The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held:

  1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506,[1] and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177. The conclusion was in the favor of the NFA.
  2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

I will add that short barreled shotguns are now part of the US Army. They are mounted on the bottom of M4 carbines for breaching (M26) and SOF has used them (870/590) for decades for the same purpose. So by the arguments in Miller the 2nd Amendment does protect military weapons for use by the militia.


CD
 
Last edited:
Combat Diver said:
I will add that short barreled shotguns are now part of the US Army.
Click to expand...
From what I recall even back then they were too. They were used in WW1.

This is one of the flagship cases demonstrating why you never lay your hopes at the feet of those tyrants in black. Some view their word as holy, other’s do not.
 
FWIW, my friend that was in Cu Chi District, Vietnam, as a Army combat "boot on the ground" in 1968, told me he was eligible to request a shotgun while he was there. It didn't guarantee you'd get one, but it was a possible option. He said the M16s he had were "jamming pieces of ----" so he did request, and was issued, a short-barrel Winchester 1200.
 
Last edited:
Combat Diver said:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Click to expand...

As Combat Diver noted, there was no appearance for the defense. The phrase "not within judicial notice" in the SCOTUS opinion simply means that nobody presented an argument that short-barrelled shotguns might be useful for the militia or common defense. And in those days, SCOTUS justices did not just go out on their own looking for arguments they liked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom