There are arguments that if the “founders” knew of that capabilities of modern firearms, they would change their position. My response is they legalized the most lethal firearms available at the time. Thoughts?
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Text of amendment is not about types of weapons- it is about not to be infringed right to form a militia using any available weapons to fight off tyranny of the government.There are arguments that if the “founders” knew of that capabilities of modern firearms, they would change their position. My response is they legalized the most lethal firearms available at the time. Thoughts?
There are arguments that if the “founders” knew of that capabilities of modern firearms, they would change their position. My response is they legalized the most lethal firearms available at the time. Thoughts?
Such discussions are a waste of time and effort. The "founders" disagreed on many things, and one can cherry pick among their writings and actions to support pretty much any position. What you, I, or the people making these arguments opine matters squat. What matters, at least until a different Supreme Court decides otherwise, is what's in the Heller and McDonald:There are arguments that if the “founders” knew of that capabilities of modern firearms, they would change their position. My response is they legalized the most lethal firearms available at the time. Thoughts?
Well.... there is a few that would disagree here... but let's not name namesOP, you're posting on NES... no serious poster here is likely to disagree with you.
The Founders did not intend for citizens to be "equal to" the military; they intended for citizens to actually be the military, for all intents and purposes. So naturally, they wanted them armed well.
Subsequent events have given us a standing army, which most of the Founders were against. Meaning, they'd be even more adamant that the citizens should be well-armed. They saw a standing army as a threat to liberty, but what they probably meant was an army used as a police force (the way the British used theirs here).
I think the founders would have intended for us to be better-armed than the police, to prevent them from trampling our rights. JMO. And since today's police have a lot of the same shit the military has, well, there you go.
For a society to be both orderly and free, the government must be more powerful than any small group of individuals, but the majority of individuals must collectively be more powerful than the government.I believe they intended the citizenry to be on even footing with the government.
Modern military weapons are just out of reach financially for most people, even if we could get them.
I'd love to stroll down to the dealership and get an A10.
ok, but where can we get some of those F16s and nukes? as a current tyrant in charge says it ain`t gonna work without them.the majority of individuals must collectively be more powerful than the government.
If you're arguing with someone they've made up their mind and they just want to take it out on you.Good points all. Helped me better articulate the counter point.
I know but I feel like I have try as futile as it is.If you're arguing with someone they've made up their mind and they just want to take it out on you.
I'll admit, sometimes it's enjoyable to beat the crap out of someone with facts, just to see them get pissy! I also enjoy tactfully letting them know how moronic their thought process is, even before they express it. However, I also enjoy not banging my head into a wall repeatedly!! If I feel like I can educate someone on something, I'll do it, as long as they're receptive to facts.I know but I feel like I have try as futile as it is.
Consider that the only two wars the US ever lost were against an indigenous people fighting with small arms and whatever they could scrounge up.ok, but where can we get some of those F16s and nukes? as a current tyrant in charge says it ain`t gonna work without them.
So you think the war of 1812 ended with "Right, we'll call it a draw then?"Consider that the only two wars the US ever lost were against an indigenous people fighting with small arms and whatever they could scrounge up.
those founders...would have wet themselves, quit their day jobs, and put holes in everything in sight if they encountered "the good stuff." i did first time i fired a full automatic weapon and still remember the thrill. well, i kept my job....but you know...i excite easily.
That argument makes no sense as it's out of context.There are arguments that if the “founders” knew of that capabilities of modern firearms, they would change their position. My response is they legalized the most lethal firearms available at the time. Thoughts?
I was talking about the two wars we lost to indigenous people with weaponry far below what the US had. I think we won the ware of 1812 making ineligible for that list. Are there wars we lost other than Viet Nam and Afghanistan?So you think the war of 1812 ended with "Right, we'll call it a draw then?"
There are arguments that if the “founders” knew of that capabilities of modern firearms, they would change their position. My response is they legalized the most lethal firearms available at the time. Thoughts?
The British repelled the invasion into Canada, burned the U.S. Capitol and the President's Mansion, and the Treaty of Ghent meant that the United States achieved no concessions from the British except a return to the pre-war status quo. How is that a victory?I was talking about the two wars we lost to indigenous people with weaponry far below what the US had. I think we won the ware of 1812 making ineligible for that list. Are there wars we lost other than Viet Nam and Afghanistan?
Those arguments are all f*cking stupid.There are arguments that if the “founders” knew of that capabilities of modern firearms, they would change their position. My response is they legalized the most lethal firearms available at the time. Thoughts?
The Commiewealth of mAss actually argued no as the basis for convicting a woman who possessed a stungun in response to her boyfriend beating the shit out of herWeapons considered “modern firearms” in late 1787 covered by 2A?
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had said her stun gun was "not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection” because it was “not in common use at the time of [the Second Amendment’s] enactment.”