User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/27/2001 2:25:31 PM EDT
[#1]
The arms for the malitia would be the same arms they would face if the went to war against a regular army. Threfore crewserved weapons and tracked vehicles would be the norm. When I was in Switzerland in the late eighties I saw the malitia crews schlepping their heavey machineguns and light mortars through the train station. Without the ability to match an army with the same weapons, there isn't much use for a malitia.
As far as being absolute, we can argue amongst ourselves what limits there should be to our rights, but they were included in the constitution to remind the state that there is an area where it cannot not go, period.The constitution clearly states that these right are reserved for the people or the states. Any laws to the contrary need not be obeyed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2001 5:37:23 PM EDT
[#2]
I noticed some fallacies, or at least a failure to communicate. When I say [i]Infantryman[/i], that is what I mean. Cavalrymen are excluded from the definition. Tracked vehicles are excluded from the definition. Everything that is too large to be carried by one man is excluded. Weaponry that is issued to every Infantryman as a matter of course is covered by the Second Amendment.
Disclaimer: Under that interpretation. In addition, this constitutes an opinion of an interpretation, and should not be taken as legal fact or caselaw. blah, blah, freaking blah. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2001 5:57:18 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: ...Without the ability to match an army with the same weapons, there isn't much use for a militia... There is a ton of truth in that statement, and I think Thomas Jefferson would agree. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." All this talk about what constitutes an "arm" is really beside the point. So the government is supposed to tell us what we can and can't own to protect us from.... the government? Yeah, right. [rolleyes] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2001 4:02:24 AM EDT
[#4]
Excellent post, Big_Bear! Do you mind if I use it on a couple of hard core anti's I know?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2001 8:57:18 AM EDT
[#5]
I don't mind a bit. Thanks for the compliment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2001 9:20:06 AM EDT
[#6]
Anyone who we let run around with a vote, car, or baby, we can't logically restrain from having a firearm -- because votes, cars, and babies are all far more dangerous things to have custody of than a firearm.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
