The 2nd Amendment was created with flintlock muzzleloaders in mind.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Could be there are lots of different interpretations. For instance some people say it's Rome while other people say it's Jerusalem and even others say it's England.

I think your premise was proven wrong in this thread below



"The founders wouldn't have made the 2nd amendment, if they knew of today's weapons"
test.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Ahabstar

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia...

I'm all for private ownership of firearms but this part makes me wonder if the individual is what the 2nd was actually talking about.

I mean they talk about the nation as "we the people" and the above says that the state will arm the militia, nowhere is the "individual" specified. Just saying.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
That same crown does not even allow their citizens to walk the streets carrying bladed weapons (unless < 3inches and folds) with the rational of personal protection. It is no wonder their citizens are terrified and ruled by the lawless in many municipalities.
Even if a lady broke the law and successfully defended herself from a group of drunken rapists with a big boy blade, they would still go to jail first and have to endure the motions. How clucked is that?

Overall death rate is nearly the same as the US, Europeans and Australia need to get their guns back. It matters not that that firearm deaths are lower, they still die at nearly the same rate from all causes.

a reply to: daskakik

That instance is to gather and organizing a Federalized Militia. The National Guard units of the individual states for example. But they could also federalize police departments because every police force is by definition a paramilitary organization. The Ohio Highway Patrol is very upfront about telling you they are a paramilitary organization if you apply for consideration and ask you if you have a problem with it.

a reply to: TheTruthRocks

It's about defending yourself instead of relying on the government to defend you.

The saying goes, when seconds count the police are just minutes away.

a reply to: Ahabstar

I get that but then the "right of the people" in the 2nd can be interpreted as the right of the "the people of the state", as a state , not necessarily the individual.

It clearly says that the state is responsible for arming them so, if interpreted as above, there really is no "individual right".

a reply to: daskakik

Look up the supreme court ruling...D.C. vs Heller, c2008

You'll find the 'state' and individual answer

Mg

a reply to: missed_gear

That is how the SCOTUS interpreted and not necessarily what the forefather's meant.

I was just pointing out that what Ahabstar posted doesn't really clear up the question and might even make an argument against.

a reply to: daskakik

Can’t be too picky, otherwise cruel and unusual punishment couldn’t be used on the whole, but could be used on you.

But if you look back to Section 8 and consider that the individual is the militia, then in creating regulations for the land, a felon may not possess a gun. We have since expanded to include mentally ill, drug addicts, non-citizens...unless of course you live in a state that allows private sales.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Can’t be too picky, otherwise cruel and unusual punishment couldn’t be used on the whole, but could be used on you.

But if you look back to Section 8 and consider that the individual is the militia, then in creating regulations for the land, a felon may not possess a gun. We have since expanded to include mentally ill, drug addicts, non-citizens...unless of course you live in a state that allows private sales.

Section 8 is what I'm talking about. It says the state is responsible for arming the militia and if the militia is the individual then it can be interpreted as saying that they can only get arms through the state.

The eighth on the other hand needed the scotus to rule that it included states, as well as the individual. Maybe not a good comparison.

I'm not being picky, I'm just pointing out that the words in those docs are vague and Sec 8 doesn't really clear anything up.

Moved from the Weaponry forum, which is not for political topics.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
How then, in your opinion, does the "well-regulated" part fit in?

In the context of legality and arms, "well regulated" simply meant in good working order. In other words, the founding fathers were champions of not only Americans being armed, but in Americans being armed with firearms which were good quality and properly maintained.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: FlyingFox
How then, in your opinion, does the "well-regulated" part fit in?

In the context of legality and arms, "well regulated" simply meant in good working order. In other words, the founding fathers were champions of not only Americans being armed, but in Americans being armed with firearms which were good quality and properly maintained.

Good working order also included them being properly trained and regularly drilled on a monthly basis. In fact, it was the law. It is also the reason many of the towns in the original states had reserved community "greens" at the town center. It was space reserved for the militia to drill and meet their monthly obligations with their firearms.

a reply to: daskakik

Section 8 is Congressional power. States are not allowed to have standing armies either. But Congress is to arm the militia when called upon (Federalized).

a reply to: Krakatoa

Doesn't Switzerland require all citizens to own a firearm and be trained in it's use?

a reply to: Ahabstar

Isn't one of the arguments that citizens had to take their own weapons?

And not just any guns but "well regulated" ones (AKA "in good working order").

So which is it, individuals have a right to bear arms because they will need them when called upon or congress has to arm them?

Don't get me wrong, I know they might be talking about more powerful weapons or some other gray possibility but neither document makes it clear one way or the other.

originally posted by: AdKiller
Because that's all the government had.

edit on Sun Jan 14 2018 by DontTreadOnMe because: Terms and Conditions

In that case, The first amendment only applies to print, written, or spoken speech. Nothing broadcast with any kind of electricity. The free press would only be able to speak in these modalities

assembly was restricted to the only groups existing on earth at the time.

religion was reserved for ...perhaps... five religions.

In fact, any of our rights that are now expressed through electricity are unprotected.

originally posted by: Annee
No one knows for sure exactly what the original 2nd Amendment means. Not even those who've studied it.

But, as it stands now, Scalia allowed the NRA to define it.

This is like allowing Fundamental Christians to define separation of church & state.

that's a fallacy. it implies that people are completely unable to make decisions that are outside of their biases.
...because concurrent to this, the same argument applies.

it would be like allowing secular humanists to define the separation of church and state.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ahabstar

Isn't one of the arguments that citizens had to take their own weapons?

And not just any guns but "well regulated" ones (AKA "in good working order").

So which is it, individuals have a right to bear arms because they will need them when called upon or congress has to arm them?

Don't get me wrong, I know they might be talking about more powerful weapons or some other gray possibility but neither document makes it clear one way or the other.

Technically, both applied. This means that the local resolutions typically, across the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in effect stated that each man from 16 to 60 was to appear with his firearm and equipped with the proper accoutrements (powder, ball, hatchet, and bayonet) when called to muster. If they did not have a firearm, they would be supplied with one from the state (and returned after their 1 year tour of duty was over).

So, each man was EXPECTED to provide their own by default. Only if they did not have one (which was the exception at the time) it would be furnished as a loan from the state, and keep in their home, until their obligations was met.

That way, they could "keep and bear" those arms when called upon to do so as part of their duty.