Do you trust your neighbor to own a sword?

My yes, a jerk neighbor. And a police officer armed with ordinance paid for in part by SusanMN's taxes.

What about that? Government is a gun owner too. You going to take their guns away too? Maybe restrict the cops to muzzle loading flintlock muskets....
 

Old Bookaroo said:
Treasure Hunter:

I didn't bring up the concept of a "gun-free zone." I simply pointed out it doesn't really mean much.

There is a first half to the 2nd Amendment. I quoted a bit from the Second Militia Act of 1794 - which explains in detail what "well-regulated" means.

Yes, I'm fully aware of Heller, and I recommend a very careful reading of that remarkably poor decision. Originalism As Faith exposes the utter bankruptcy of that judicial "philosophy" as practiced in the real world.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo
Click to expand...

Where does government's right to arms come from, Old Bookaroo?
 

Old Bookaroo said:
Treasure Hunter:

I didn't bring up the concept of a "gun-free zone." I simply pointed out it doesn't really mean much.

There is a first half to the 2nd Amendment. I quoted a bit from the Second Militia Act of 1794 - which explains in detail what "well-regulated" means.

Yes, I'm fully aware of Heller, and I recommend a very careful reading of that remarkably poor decision. Originalism As Faith exposes the utter bankruptcy of that judicial "philosophy" as practiced in the real world.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo
Click to expand...

SCOTUS has already ruled the right to keep and bear arms is not connected to service in a militia. The militia was made up of normal citizens who pretty much came and left as they wished, required to serve no more than 90 days in a row if they wished to leave. To be part of the militia you were required to furnish your own firearms which meant you had to be armed to begin with to do so.

In fact every man in America today between ages of 17 to 45 is automatically in the unorganized militia in America per the Militia Act of 1903.

"Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is used to describe two classes within the United States:[SUP][8][/SUP]

  • Organized militia – consisting of State Defense Forces, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP]
  • Unorganized militia – comprising the reserve militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the State Defense Forces, National Guard, or Naval Militia.[SUP][11]"[/SUP]


District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.[SUP][1][/SUP] It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.[SUP][2]

[/SUP]District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia
 

Last edited:
I'm taking bets!! On when this will be moved to the political forum...
Who wants in?


laughing11.gif
 

Book, come on up!!!

All I got up here is peace :) Isn't that all we've ever wanted?
 

Treasure Hunter:

If everyone is a member of the militia, and it has no organization, it's hardly "well-regulated." The Second Militia Act of 1794 makes it crystal clear what "well-regulated" means. it's right there in black and white. I can't agree with your characterization of how it went in Colonial America - it's not backed up by history.

As for Heller, the muddled opinion makes no sense. Is the Constitution of the United States a restaurant menu where one can pick and choose which parts to abide by and which parts to skip? Seriously flawed as it is, Heller isn't the decision many people would like it to be. All one must do is read it.

However, the larger question remains. With 4% of the world's population and the preponderance of private firearm ownership, we have one of the highest murder rates on earth. If more guns make society safer, we should be the safest place in the world. Why does Canada, our neighbor to the north, have less than half the problem we do? The United Kingdom - 25%. Norway, Sweden and Denmark - those horrible "socialist" nations - combined are at about half of where the US of A is.

Let's look at history. Tombstone, Dodge City, Abilene, even Deadwood had 19th Century bans on open carry. I suggest Tombstone in the 1880's had stricter gun laws than Arizona has today. Why? Because enough people weren't carrying firearms?

Until citizens come together to admit we have a problem, the problem will continue.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo
 

DeepseekerADS:

Thank you for your kind invitation. If you decide to come to Northern California, be sure to let me know.

I think almost everyone in our country wants the same things - peace, quiet, a chance to earn a living, the opportunity for the next generation to have it better than we had, etc. Our goals are all pretty much in line.

The conversation is about how we get there.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo
 

The only problem we have is people trying to take our rights away guaranteed under our Constitution.

Your correct, it is there in black and white, the 2nd amendment doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it says "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and at the time it was written the militia was unregulated.

The Bill of Rights was written to protect the citizens, the people from a central government that that may try to become tyrannical. The Bill of rights was written to protect the citizens from a central government and to give us the means to resist a tyrannical government.

Our forefathers were still reeling from a war and the strong arm of the English Crown, and they had no wish to see the same events unfold in a new country. They wanted something to protect them from their own government and the Bill of Rights was written to protects the people and the government from themselves, such as the right to peaceful assembly which allows protest, as long as they are peaceful.
 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

There is a "first half" of the Second Amendment and it is of upmost importance. Contrary to the claims that are sometimes bandied about, that "first half" does not recognize a collective right of the government. Instead it specifies the purpose for the Amendment itself (in particular, the "second half" of the Amendment). In fact the BOR is really a list of negatives - actions that cannot be legally taken by the federal government (with passage of the 14th Amendment, that prohibition extends to state governments as well). The 10th amendment makes that crystal clear: essentially noting the fact that unless the federal government was specifically granted a power, the federal government does not hold that power.

"A well educated populace, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

Few would read the above analogy and come away with the belief that it somehow granted the federal government powers.

There is no record (Congressional Record) of a belief (among those who made the 2nd Amendment law) that the 2nd Amendment did anything but restrict the government from taking action with regards to an individuals birth right (to keep and bear arms). There are many conversations (recorded in the record) as to why such a birth right should be recognized. In fact the purpose for the BOR was because it was feared that the federal government would usurp powers not granted it by the states/citizens.

While a convincing argument could be offered that the federal government (and state governments) long ago scrapped the concept of limited governmental powers, there is no rational doubt about the stated intent (of the framers) to create a government entirely dependent upon its citizens/states granting powers to it and not the other way around.

There was no Militia Act of 1794. Not a first and not a second. The second Militia Act was in 1792 and it was followed by the Militia Act of 1795. None of which defined what a "well regulated militia" was or means; though the 2nd Militia Act of 1792 did specify how the militia was to be called to service, trained, and what the expectations were [of the members].

"I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."

https://constitution.org/1-Activism/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
 

Last edited:
In 1791 the term "well regulated" did not hold the meaning that is typically assigned to it today. The phrase wasn't referring to regulations, laws, or government oversight.

It meant well trained - as in a state's security was dependent upon well trained individuals who could effectively fight on its behalf.
 

Last edited:
Tahts-a-dats-ago said:
In 1791 the term "well regulated" did not hold the meaning that is typically assigned to it today. The phrase wasn't referring to regulation, laws, or government oversight.

It meant well trained - as in a state's security was dependent upon well trained individuals who could effectively fight on its behalf.
Click to expand...

Unarmed with no weapons available would not equate to being well regulated. At least not by the definition of being in a functional order /workable.
 

there is no end to the control. First guns, then lifted trucks, then fast cars, then youll be forced to live in a city, to conserve resources, you know. in the name of green movement, im sure you can think of many more things we dont "need" until we are told what profession we will have, how many kids we can have, how many cars we can have, how many miles we can drive per day, like China, we need to be more like China....... And now ill prep some more brass
 

It seems pretty clear cut and obvious based on a plain English reading and an understanding of American History.

I suppose if you are so inclined, the debate could be made as to what the meaning of “is” “is”.

My rights were not granted by anybody here.
 

We have SERIOUS societal problems far worse than weapons.

That’s the real problem....why so many crazy wack jobs out there these days?

I mean put a hammer in someone’s hand...they can either build a house or smash people. Who does that? Not me or anyone I know.

If we want to get into statistics...how many mass shootings were caused by people that were or had been taking “medication” who’s side effect is thoughts about harming themselves or others?!!! Mind altering drugs.
 

Last edited:
Oregon Viking, please remember this is general forum, not politics forum. Thanks
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

My new scuba diving treasure ark rebuild..

⬅️ Previous Thread

Do you know where to find a taverneum for coins, swords, and other finds ?

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Latest Discussions

Back
Top