Join INGunOwners For Free
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
  1. #1
    Marksman

    User Info Menu

    2nd Amendment Founders Intent...

    Does the Constitution’s right to keep and bear arms apply to everyone? Or only to law enforcement and the National Guard? Does the right include so-called “assault weapons?”


    One influential founder had specific writings on the subject.

    In a Pennsylvania Gazette article published February 20, 1788, Coxe addressed the right to keep and bear arms: “The power of the sword, [opponents] say … is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY … Who are the militia? are they not ourselves[?].”



    Coxe also addressed the kinds of arms included: “Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American.”

    https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/15/natelson-military-weapons/

  2. #2
    Plinker AlVine's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    I heard a new pro-gun control argument yesterday. That the power of Congress to raise a militia, one of the enumerated powers listed in Article 1, Section 8, means that the states can not have militias, and the people can’t have arms. I was under the impression that the militia mentioned in Art. 1, Sec. 8 was a federal militia, like the National Guard when under federal control, and has nothing to do with state militias.

    “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;”

  3. #3
    Grandmaster HoughMade's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Thankfully, having a "militia" is irrelevant to the gun control argument.

    So says the United States Supreme Court.
    ​Bullies suck. They also make you stronger.

  4. #4
    Grandmaster Kirk Freeman's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Al, the militia clause of the Second Amendment is the statement of purpose, just like the statement of purpose of the First Amendment. The Statement of Purpose of an amendment does NOT define its scope.

    People=individuals, all throughout the Bill of Rights.

    NAACP v. Alabama, read this and see if it helps=>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP_v._Alabama
    Denny Reichard, RIP.


  5. #5
    Grandmaster Kirk Freeman's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    The National Guard is part of the federal army.

    Perpich v. Department of Defense=>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpic...ent_of_Defense
    Denny Reichard, RIP.


  6. #6
    Master Lex Concord's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Ingomike View Post
    Does the Constitution’s right to keep and bear arms apply to everyone? Or only to law enforcement and the National Guard? Does the right include so-called “assault weapons?”


    One influential founder had specific writings on the subject.

    In a Pennsylvania Gazette article published February 20, 1788, Coxe addressed the right to keep and bear arms: “The power of the sword, [opponents] say … is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY … Who are the militia? are they not ourselves[?].”



    Coxe also addressed the kinds of arms included: “Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American.”

    https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/15/natelson-military-weapons/
    Hmmmm.... that sounds oddly familiar
    Quote Originally Posted by Benjamin Franklin
    Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tench Coxe
    Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
    Quote Originally Posted by William Blakstone
    It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

  7. #7
    Le mot juste 2A_Tom's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Tench Coxe, lays it on the line.

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tench_Coxe


    The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.
    Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
    The member formerly known as blue falcon.
    To avoid misunderstandings.



  8. #8
    Plinker

    User Info Menu

    I heard someone describe the "statement of purpose" like this. "Having a well educated people, is a necessity in a free state. The right of the people to own and read books shall not be infringed." And as for military weapons, all weapons are military. It is a false distinction.

  9. #9
    Master spec4's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    It says: "The Right of the People", not the right of the National Guard, Militia, congress, police, etc. "The People"..pretty plain to me. I consider myself an American people.

  10. #10
    Sharpshooter

    User Info Menu

    WELL....
    Now that you brought up the subject.

    What random pundts have to say never did, and never will have any sway on the Constitution, and the only opinions that matter are what the framers were thinking at the time.

    At the time means you have to understand context...

    And the context at the time were rapidly expanding, imperialist, monarchy.
    Monarchy, King, Queen or Emperor dictates law/policy.
    Imperialism, a policy of extending a countries power or influence through economic, diplomatic or military means.

    While at the time conscripted armies had been replaced by paid mercenaires, the threat to the fledgling country required a civilian insurgency militia.

    This was simply a question of money, an insurgency has zero financial capability other than donations, the volunteer insurgency citizen soldiers had to provide their own arms, and usually their own transportation (other than marching), and often times even food & cloths.

    Until ratification of the Constitution in 1790 (ratifying convention of 1790) there wasn't a budget for a standing army, the citizen militias were the only national defense.
    The budget was intentionally kept small, and the standing army kept small as not to be a threat to the fledgling government, the original states still containing a lot of British loyalists which could creep into positions of power in the professional army.
    The citizen militias were considered the first line of defense, and they were considered less dangerous to the government.

    Outside of war time, the military forces were intentionally reduced to keep that threat to a minimum, added troops returned to civilian life immediately after wartime.

    This changed after WWII, when the military, and military contractors colluded to quietly, and secretly take power wherever they could, and President Eisenhower warned the American people long & loud this was an actual conspiracy and ongoing dangerous threat to the civilian government.
    It's not a tin foil hat conspiracy when the highest ranking general in the military, and the president of the United States warns you about it...

    On the other hand, with virtually unlimited controls on firearms ownership, the weapons manufacturers are making money hand over fist,
    And the abundance of firearms is giving the military an excuse to move against the civilian population.
    Exactly what President Eisenhower warned about, since he had been briefed while being actively recruited...

    There is a reason for posse comitatus, when the military is called to police the civilian population, the civilian population becomes the enemy...

    What the framers couldn't have anticipated was the killing power of today's weapons, which the military has nearly complete control over, and they are already here & dug in.
    If you think your AR or AK clone is a match for the full force of a military assault, you don't have a clue how fast that fight is going to be over, and you have exactly zero chance... Even in force.

    The ONLY chance we have is taking back control of government and that takes a vote not bullets.
    There are a LOT of rank & file military that wouldn't fire upon the US civilian population, and that been studied endlessly by the military.
    The ONLY reason to study US military not firing on US civilians is to determine how to get those US military people to do what they want.
    This is simple logic, common sense, and as of yet they can't consistently break down service members to fire on US civilians (thankfully!)
    -------------

    Since I don't mix and match, I separate issues...

    The Constitution grants you the right to own firearms, you are born with it, or citizenship grants firearms ownership.
    That's everyone, no exceptions.

    YOU, YOUR ACTIONS get that right restricted or removed.

    Society has an absolute right to protect itself, and YOU screw the pooch to get your firearms ownership rights removed.
    Restrictions/removal isn't arbitrary, YOU got a felony, YOU threatened other people, YOU are a danger to general society.

    I don't agree with 'Red Flag' laws that don't go through a courts process where actual evidence is presented & evaluated, a defense is presented, and verdict is rendered under the full weight & scrutiny of law.
    It's illegal firearms confiscation without full due process.

    On the other hand, with full due process, and actual, credible evidence on both sides, taking firearms from someone not mentally competent (read: actually bat crap crazy) isn't such a bad idea...
    Columbine, crazy guys with guns,
    Sandy Hook, crazy guy with gun,
    Arora theater shooting, crazy guy with gun,
    Las Vegas, crazy guy with gun,
    The list is endless....

    Your 'Right' to be crazy doesn't fly when you are talking about everyone else's right to stay alive. Period.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •