Re: All or nothing for 2nd amendment
- From: "Scout" <4guns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 13:27:35 -0500
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@(spamlock)comcast.net> wrote in message
"Morton Davis" <antikerry@xxxxxx> wrote in news:6LyGf.543241$084.174529
<editor@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
At the time the Second Amendment was ratified, it - undeniably -It also meant cannons, ships armed with cannons and even private armed
meant the right to have what was the first-rate infantry rifle of the
time, used by the world's top colonial power (Britain) and commonly
owned by individual Americans then alike. It obviously didn't mean
that individual Americans' gun rights were only to guns inferior to
military rifles. That means that the Second Amendment - if construed
logically - means all Americans should have the right to an M-16.
forces. In the Civil War, many of the units on both sides were
privately financed, uniformed and armed.
However, the Supreme Court noted the following in US v Miller:
"And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in
common use at the time."
I doubt that frigates, private armies (since banned) and cannons were "of
the kind in common use at the time." Were they in use? Yes. Was that
use common? No.
True, but let's be honest, SCOTUS pulled that limitation on arms out of thin
air. Because while people showing up with cannon wasn't common....they did
- Prev by Date: Re: All or nothing for 2nd amendment
- Next by Date: Re: All or nothing for 2nd amendment
- Previous by thread: Re: All or nothing for 2nd amendment
- Next by thread: Re: All or nothing for 2nd amendment