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

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: AdKiller

Arms is arms, current tech of the day, then or now.

To remain at least as well armed as the authorities lest they try to oppress the people and deprive them of their life, liberty and happiness.

How is that going, by the way?

I've not checked posse comitatus lately.

a reply to: AdKiller

Of course you can use guns to attack your opponent from distance....

But then you lose your manhood and the only pride worth having.

A true man will face his opponent in hand to hand combat!

Before you disarm the people by a twisted reading of the second, might want look over Article 1, Section 8 first. To highlight points to ponder look for these parts for deeper consideration as to why that second stands...

The Congress shall have the power to....

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

And always remember that each and every right within the Bill of Rights are specifically for and retained by the people equal to or above both the State and Federal governments as well as private organizations. In other words, your Flying Spaghetti Monster ideas are to be protected equally to mainstream religions. And you can publish your own book, newsletter, magazine, pamphlets, etc just as freely as Random House and Scholastic Press do.

So before cutting up what you don’t like, keep in mind what you do like can be as easily removed.

I have seen people use similar logic asking if the press should be relegated to using quill pens, ink pots, and a moveable type manual printing press, since that's all they had at the time. Seems like a ridiculous argument on both sides.

a reply to: AdKiller

We still shooting muzzleloaders, relatively speaking.

Fine.

Let's treat the first amendment the same way.

We'd all be using smoke signals, and pencils and paper.

No smart phones,tablets,computers, and the internets.

$200 tax stamps on all the above.

Can only say one word at a time.

A paragraph can only hold five words at a time.

Background check and mandatory waiting period before getting to speak or writing anything down.

This thread reminded me of this scene from Futurama.

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: AdKiller

Of course you can use guns to attack your opponent from distance....

But then you lose your manhood and the only pride worth having.

A true man will face his opponent in hand to hand combat!

Tell that to Drone Operators, Apache helicopter and bomber pilots.

originally posted by: badw0lf

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: AdKiller

Arms is arms, current tech of the day, then or now.

To remain at least as well armed as the authorities lest they try to oppress the people and deprive them of their life, liberty and happiness.

How is that going, by the way?

I've not checked posse comitatus lately.

Posse Commie- who? Oh, those guys with a secret airbase in the woods, complete with underground tank and air craft factories, next to a miles long runway?

Its going fine, I plan on cranking up my tank divisions and rolling on Washington tomorrow.

Thats the point numbnuts; militarily speaking, the Authorities have the people so outclassed it might as well be muskets against tanks.

a reply to: bluechevytree


Luke 22:36

"He (Jesus) said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

-Any man that turns his sword into a plowshare will surely find himself harvesting crops for a man that kept his sword

a reply to: Annee

Did you read the preamble to the Declaration of Independence? It's contextual.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

The idea is de-centralization. To imbue the people with certain rights in order to de-centralize power.

Of course this concept is anathema to centralization schemes like socialism, communism and fascism.

OMG!

the 1st Amendment doesn't mention Twitter either!

a reply to: bluechevytree

That's a good question, to understand the concepts you need to understand the reformation. In the reformation there were 2 basic camps of philosophical thought, the rationalists and the humanists.

Rationalists described the idea of natural rights, primarily in terms of property ownership. For instance the right to defend your person also includes the right to defend your property. That means from physical assault as well as intellectual assault. To defend your property from physical assault you need arms or weapons of equal force to your aggressor, the 2nd amendment, the 1st amendment is to arm yourself intellectually. But if your aggressor is organized, then you need the right to form groups for defense of your community, that is a 'militia'. A militia can also extend to things like organized watch groups, or search and rescue groups.

Humanists on the other hand argued that governments should be organized on the principle of the 'greater good' that is individuals then become subject to the idea of the greater good. This greater good concept then becomes malleable, relative, subjective to the current group in power. They then define those items they think are for the greater good of society without ever defining or identifying the greater evil.

If you are to discuss a greater good, then by necessitate of logic there must be a greater evil. Unless you don't believe in good or evil and in that case why use the term 'greater good'? The rationalists opposed this nonsense and to defend their ideals they armed themselves physically and intellectually.

a reply to: AdKiller

That is probably why the US is not mentioned in prophecy. The only way to kill us is to nuke us. Our enemies know trump is not a man of honor and we are weak from it.

Let the guns people have their guns. As big as they want. They are useless anyway.

troll much

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: AdKiller

Incorrect.

They also had cannon, swords, primitive bombs, and ships with many cannon aboard.

You are welcome, I enjoy denying ignorance.

They also had repeaters which were essentially automatics, and gatling guns, which are basically the fastest shooting guns of all time.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: AdKiller

That is probably why the US is not mentioned in prophecy.

Isn't the US supposed to be that "Mystery Babylon" mentioned in prophecy?

"So I'm just wondering, did we have the "right" to bear arms before firearms were even invented?"

Arms includes bows, swords, spears, clubs, and rocks if you paid attention in history class.

Firearms are arms that use fire to make them work.

It's why movies that include archery scenes in battle usually get it wrong. If an English battlefield commander at Agincourt in northern France had yelled, "Fire!" to a line of archers, they probably would've dropped their bows and ran. There's a FIRE? Where? The proper command to release arrows was usually "loose!" Many screenwriters didn't pay attention in history class.

I think having reasonable means for citizens to protect themselves, their families and friends from crime, government tyranny, foreign invasion, etc., by whatever means necessary is the intent of the 2nd amendment. The modern military concept of the same idea is "proportional response." Taking a knife to a gunfight reduces your chances of properly defending yourself.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." This popular quote has often been incorrectly attributed to Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander in Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II. With this alleged statement, he advised the Japanese Emperor how foolhardy it would be to invade the US. Even though he probably never said this, it's a great reminder to everyone of the power of the 2nd amendment.

The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Not according to the old timey religion.
I was taught by baptists prophecy in the 60s. All of prophecy was around the fate of Israel. So some believe we will not be a super power or nuked.
I don’t know what they teach the last 40 years.

I actually think that the 2nd was written with swords and shovels in mind. That was the predication for it.

It was the concept that the crown should not disarm The People, and then victimize them. A good microcosm of this concept is not allowing felons to own guns, then huddling them all into low income housing where crime is already high, so they can no longer defend themselves legally.