Not what I said. Go read what I wrote.
Good point. We all know how they love to pull that shit. Remember the stupid woman on tv saying some .50 cal bullets are have heat seeking devices on them?
The common use of “arm” is of military usage, and the wording of the 2nd IE militia would lead a reasonable thinker using common sense to deduce the 2nd is aimed at protecting weapons ownership of military weapons.
Also people used to own artillery and cannons in the late 1700’s, and up into the early 1800’s.
Given the weapons in use at the time if military weapons were not to be included in the 2nd’s meaning the founders would have excluded them specifically.
I would stand behind this guy 100%, back when the constitution was written a lot of civilian weapons were more efficient than the military weapons, so I don’t see a prolblem. going forward 100yrs or more the military was still using the trap door remington single shot weapons when the a lot of civvies were using lever action repeater carbines. Hell Little Big Horn would have been a whole different story had Col Custer’s troops been issued repeaters instead of the single shot trap doors they had. Even in more modern times there are plenty of cases in which civilians had to ablilty to purchase “better” more modern firearms than LEO and Military. It’s not until the past 50yrs or so that we “civilians” have become the restricted in what we’re allowed to purchase.
I think that around WWII or maybe a little earlier the Fed Gov’t when it had gained some popularity used it’s position the create Fed Agencies and laws to both make the gov’t stronger and the individual stated and individual citizens weaker.
Now with the “threat” of terrorism they gov’t seems to be attempting to usurp even more power from individuals and the indivudual states.
This has not always been the case, this has happened in the past 50-60yrs of the history of the great country and I don’t see any reason a lot this cannot be reversed. We are a Dem Republic of United States in which the indivdual States are supposed to have the power over their own laws. The current oversixed Fed Gov’t we are now dealing with is a perfect example of what happens when you let the Camels nose into the tent…it doesn’t take long for the whole camel to get into the tent! IMO!
A true Multi party system, term limits, and clear boundaries between fed and state jursidiction could eliminate the Circus that is now running this country.
OK you were questioning whether crew served weapons should be covered under the 2A. What was a cannon in the 1760s? Did I miss something? Are you reading all what i wrote?
ETA: Just to show I am reading your entire post (my emphasis):
I disagree with you. I think the 2nd pretty clearly spells out arms. That means infantry weapons. IMO the 2nd explicitly protects the M-16 series of rifles and M4 series carbines, the M9 pistol, and various other infantry weapons.
I do not believe that it protects the right to “bear” ships or artillery - as one cannot “bear” these. Crew-served weapons would be a gray area and one that I would need to think about a bit more.
That is my opinion, of course.
Precisely true. Until the NFA of 1934 civilians could purchase and own any arm: cannon, machine gun, BAR, Tommy Gun, etc. So us arguing over the intended scope of the 2A is ridiculous. Up until 1934 it was well understood: shall not be infringed. It didn’t take a lawyer to understnad what that meant. For the first 150 years of our country’s history any citizen could own any arm: ship, artillery, machine gun, explosive, etc.
If we struggle with understanding this principle then the battle is lost already.
A better answer might be:
The looks of a firearm do not affect the function of the firearm. I support everyone’s right to own, possess, carry, or transport any firearm of their choosing, within the constraints of state and Federal laws [I was thinking Class III weapons for the last part]
Look there are laws against killing people in cold blood and there are noise ordinances, and discharging of weapons in high pop areas… I can live with that. But if I feel safe with a freaking 105 in the backyard and I’m not brining the hurt down on my neighbor because his dog or duck or whatever pooped in my yard, then who cares! Dead is dead,i can shoot you in the eye with a high powered pellet rifle a lot easier than finding the correct range of a moving target and then firing for effect on my 105 in the back yard…if you have murder in your heart…and you want to kill someone then a #2 pencil will work as well as a silenced .45!
Guys, I think people are getting away from what the OP was originally asking in regards to his candidate.
Let’s keep it on that please.