Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment Everyone knows the 2nd Amt. is only for arming the army

Yup, 'fraid so. Looked like the other site was going to shut down, so I decided I'd come over here and inflict myself on these good people, perhaps managing in the process also to soil the reputations of Flower Child and T LEE for inviting me.


Well, if you accept Hawkeye's argument about "traditional rights," then I suppose you could argue that.

But my argument about the absence of automatic limitations on the extent of the 2A doesn't come from the Constitution, but from the DoI's stipulation that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. If the government now has the power to possess tanks, planes, artillery, aircraft carriers, etc., then according to the DoI that power must have been given to it by the people. Therefore, at some point the people must have had that power to give. (Remember, the BoR doesn't purport to create any rights, just to protect rights that existed before it was written.)

Now, you could argue, using various dubious theories and historical assertions, that the implicit intent of the founders when they wrote the Constitution was to sign over to government and subsequently give up their right to possess crew-served weapons. Perhaps you would win that argument, and perhaps you wouldn't.

But my assertion, fueled by treatises like Lysander Spooner's No Treason, is that the argument is moot. Whether or not you can argue convincingly that the founders gave up those rights, you cannot argue convincingly that I have given them up. Even if the Constitution can be construed as transferring those rights to government, I didn't sign the Constitution, I didn't swear to uphold or defend it, and I didn't vote for any politician that is now in power. (Or at least, you can't prove that I did.)

So, 2A or no 2A, I believe I have the right to own whatever military or paramilitary weapons I can afford. Right now, that's pretty much limited to a Springfield M1A and a Glock 17; but I have the aircraft carrier on order--I got a good deal on e-bay.

Barak, trust me, you can't tarnish my rep. It's already green from my opposition of GW's little war in the making.

I was a card carrying Republican most of my life. I now vote on the basis of issue alone, don't look to party affiliations for salvation, they are all just politicians (the nastiest word I can think of) bent on keeping their job and their fingers in the till.

Barak, you have armed yourself very well with a Springfield M1A and a Glock 17. Can't argue with your two gun battery (assuming you don't hunt). Only change I might make would have been for you to get yourself a good 1911 A1 Government Model .45 instead of the Glock, but I know why you got the Glock (I think), and it's probably a good idea. I think you wanted a handgun that didn't require a whole lot of training for everyone in the house to know how to use it effectively, and that's a Glock alright. Glocks are very reliable and tough. Good choices. If a person is properly trained in the Government Model .45, however, it's a better combat weapon than the Glock in my humble opinion.

Well, Barak - I'm gonna take some time to wrap my mind around your last post.

Real glad to see you here, amigo. And FC too. There are some great personalities here at the Campfire, and it will be even better with you guys here. Now, if we can get the rest of the top hands from that Shooters ship before it goes down, all will be well with the cyberworld...

-FreeMe

I know whatcha mean. There are a bunch of people in my congregation who are scratching their heads about me too. "I don't understand: surely you can't be on Saddam's side, can you?"

But they've scratched their heads about me before in that place, and they probably will again.

Oh, I too am NOT for Saddam, I am against wasting our military and the consumate funds needed to pursure a usless war. Tracking down and killing the terrorists is on the other hand a worthwile endevor in my mind.

Window dressing to cover a lack of results in the pursuit of the Tango's is all that stomping Saddam is, a diversion at best from the real issues now facing us in the world. If, and I mean IF, the government could prove to the American public that Saddam is a "Clear and Present Danger" (shades of the Missiles of October) to us and our way of life then I would say DECLARE WAR and go get him. This BS police action stuff and for the good of the world 'cause he is a bad man is a sorry excuse to put our military in harms way.

I support our men and women in uniform 110%, I do not offer the same for the .gov fools that have control of them.

Why, thank you.

Actually, it's not a two-gun battery; I was just talking about military and paramilitary weapons, and most of my other guns probably don't qualify.

I do have a French MAS 49/56 in 308, and it was intended to be a military gun, but I'm not sure I'd want to shoot it at a person more than 50yd away; after I spent a whole magazine getting dirt in his eyes, I'm afraid he'd get mad and nail me. It's mostly a fun gun at the moment. (When I got it, it was the best I could do in the way of a battle rifle; but a few years later I scored the M1A.) It's also on paper, so perhaps it could serve as confiscation fodder.

Technically, I suppose I do own ten 8mm Mauser bolt-actions, which are military guns, but they're, ah, not immediately accessible to me, shall we say, and I wouldn't be surprised if I never saw them again.


You're close. I'm limited to Five Calibers, and none of them is 45ACP. Given my choice of a pistol caliber, I probably would have chosen either 45ACP or 40S&W (I think 40S&W probably has more potential as a cartridge, but the better guns seem to be made for 45ACP), but my wife didn't like the recoil, and I wanted her to practice. So I have a Glock 17 and she has a Glock 26.

But the puniness of the 9x19mm has [bleep] at me ever since, so recently I decided to add a Fifth Caliber to my stable of Four and bought a 7.5" Ruger Redhawk revolver in 44Mag. 9x19mm isn't the puniest handgun caliber around, but it's definitely toward the bottom of the heap. Similarly, 44Mag isn't the heaviest handgun caliber around, but it's definitely toward the top. The problem is that it's ex-freaking-spensive and I don't handload. Yet.


I'm not religious about Glocks; but I am religious about trigger breaks. A gun without a trigger break (DA, DA/SA, or DAO) makes me very nervous. I want to know at some point that the very next fraction of a millimeter that the trigger moves will fire the gun. Given that, I shouldn't like the Glock's sproingy plastic trigger, but I've learned to deal with it. If I could find a thinner, smaller gun, though, that had a similar grip angle and a nice trigger break in 9mm, I'd be interested. The Kahr is good except for being DAO, and the LST (is that right? Subcompact 9mm of 1911 design?) is good except for the blindingly high price.

What's the LST?

Grabbed, yes. Hehe. An inalienable right, it is the right of the individual. The different definitions of what a militia is simply amazes me. We are talking about defense. Prosecute offenders. Allow the law abiding to defend themselves, their loved ones, their land and property. If it ever comes down to it, please let law abiding, freedom loving, decent common men to defend the country with the use of their personal firearms. Any anti's want to put all their faith in government for protection?

jojo, that's true. When asked, years after the war, why Japan did not just invade the west coast after destroying most of our Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor, a former high ranking Japanese naval officer said that the Japanese high command was aware that every American household had a loaded rifle stashed behind the kitchen door, and that most Americans knew how to use them effectively.

I know this thread is long inactive, but I'm new here and wanted to add my 2 cents.

My take on the 2nd ammendment is that is indeed for inividual persons. The concept of gun ownership is mentioned not in the general Constitution, but in the area reserved for individual rights. Yup, all 10 of them are aimed at individuals. The Constitution proper is where states rights are defined. And where Armys (well regulated militias / government contoled) are set up.

Does this sound reasonable??