Re: All or nothing for 2nd amendment

"Scout" <4guns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:z5qdnbpBY7MBFHbeRVn-rg@xxxxxxxxxxxx:


"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@(spamlock)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns97656FF511689hopewell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Morton Davis" <antikerry@xxxxxx> wrote in
news:6LyGf.543241$084.174529 @attbi_s22:


<editor@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1139455845.073146.235630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
At the time the Second Amendment was ratified, it - undeniably -
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.


It also meant cannons, ships armed with cannons and even private
armed 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 do so.

They didn't pull any limitation on it. What they were doing was
providing historical reference for how the militia was really armed.
That statement came from several historical references (some also shown
in the opinion) from different state's statutes.

Bottom line is just how many privately owned cannon were ever used by a
militia? How many frigates or warships existed in private hands? One,
two, a few? How many militia members were expected to show up with them?
If they had them, I assume that they would be welcomed.....they were
expected to show up with proper rifles, shotguns or sidearms.


--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman


People discuss self defense as if you have as much time to do it in as
they have to discuss it. In reality, you have a flash to identify the
threat and react. Whether or not you actually pull the trigger is
something that you have a microsecond to decide and a lifetime
to live with.
Mort.....2006

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: All or nothing for 2nd amendment
    ... It also meant cannons, ships armed with cannons and even private ... private armies and cannons were ... "of the kind in common use at the time." ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: All or nothing for 2nd amendment
    ... meant the right to have what was the first-rate infantry rifle of the ... It also meant cannons, ships armed with cannons and even private armed ... private armies and cannons were "of ... the kind in common use at the time." ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: All or nothing for 2nd amendment
    ... meant the right to have what was the first-rate infantry rifle of the ... It also meant cannons, ships armed with cannons and even private armed ... private armies and cannons were "of ... the kind in common use at the time." ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: All or nothing for 2nd amendment
    ... It also meant cannons, ships armed with cannons and even private armed ... private armies and cannons were "of ... the kind in common use at the time." ... gun, they were bought by those wealthy men for their forces' use. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: All or nothing for 2nd amendment
    ... It also meant cannons, ships armed with cannons and even private armed ... private armies and cannons were "of ... the kind in common use at the time." ... gun, they were bought by those wealthy men for their forces' use. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)