General Discussion

jmg257

(11,996 posts)

96. As Bogus describes - often ineffective - which is why improving their situation was "necessary".

Wed Jun 15, 2016, 10:39 AM

Jun 2016

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Guarantees centered around the vital role of the well-regulated/armed Militias.

I understand the concerns about the current situation, and the obsolete nature of the primary intent in restricting the government. With the militia purposes diminished (or removed), more legislation seems doable.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

137 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

When the second amendment was penned, people owned flintlocks. [View all] Avalux Jun 2016 OP

Which were more advanced weapons jtx Jun 2016 #1

Check yer facts. rogerashton Jun 2016 #3

Did you read the link you posted? jtx Jun 2016 #4

Girandoni air rifle Travis_0004 Jun 2016 #13

?? jtx Jun 2016 #15

It's a bullshit toy that gunners reference as a semi-auto in 1789 jberryhill Jun 2016 #32

A "toy" that Tyrollean sharpshooters in the Austrian army claimed were accurate... Marengo Jun 2016 #44

1500 pumps for 30 shots jberryhill Jun 2016 #64

Did you use the weapon in combat? Doubt it, so how is your opinion worth more... Marengo Jun 2016 #68

It's not a firearm, and you've never spoken to anyone who used one jberryhill Jun 2016 #71

Provide a link where I claimed it was a firearm, and I happen to own a "big bore" air rifle Marengo Jun 2016 #73

I'll ask again, how is my personal travel history relevant to this discussion? Marengo Jun 2016 #74

The air reservoirs are detachable, and the intention was for the soldier to carry several... Marengo Jun 2016 #88

Oh god not that canard again jberryhill Jun 2016 #29

A 50 caliber bullet traveling as fast as a modern 45ACP? I don't think you're quite right. n/t X_Digger Jun 2016 #47

Yeah a pump gun can be dangerous jberryhill Jun 2016 #63

Displaying more ignorance on the subject. It's a pre-charged pneumatic design... Marengo Jun 2016 #84

750 psi. Are you even aware how much pressure that is? A .500 caliber slug traveling at 700fps. X_Digger Jun 2016 #89

Now, where did he run off too? Marengo Jun 2016 #117

Oh yeah, 150-200 ft lbs of muzzle energy is a real joke. Marengo Jun 2016 #50

Bullshit jberryhill Jun 2016 #62

You are displaying ignorance on this subject. The firing of extent specimens... Marengo Jun 2016 #75

There was the puckle gun. beevul Jun 2016 #129

That's why I have several hundred MIRVs ready to launch in my back yard. onehandle Jun 2016 #8

"something so fundamental that it was written into the Bill of Rights" UtahJosh Jun 2016 #19

Do you know how the founder became the founders? pipoman Jun 2016 #22

By being privileged rich white men? jberryhill Jun 2016 #34

Which would have spared them the gallows had they lost? Marengo Jun 2016 #45

Wow, thanks for the hint! UtahJosh Jun 2016 #57

You're welcome...you obviously hadn't bothered to actually read... pipoman Jun 2016 #67

Yes, you're really on to me! UtahJosh Jun 2016 #70

well-regulated militia for defense against whom? 6chars Jun 2016 #51

Guns are useful to slave owners too. hunter Jun 2016 #111

is there any historical evidence this was guiding the framers? 6chars Jun 2016 #122

They were worried about Indians, Spanish, British, Slave insurrections, rebellions, riots, smugglers jmg257 Jun 2016 #136

Excellent post! 6chars Jun 2016 #137

Coming 12 years after the French and Indian Wars One_Life_To_Give Jun 2016 #127

What the fuck does this have to do with guns that can slaughter human beings with aplomb? Dem2 Jun 2016 #20

The OP is pretending that muzzle loaders have something to do with anything... pipoman Jun 2016 #23

The founders never imagined that such weapons would be commonly available Dem2 Jun 2016 #25

Unless you commune with the dead, it means nothing. Marengo Jun 2016 #31

They fully and completely intended for civilian ownership of pipoman Jun 2016 #33

Yes, after lone wolf attacks on nightclubs, the British gave up jberryhill Jun 2016 #35

The British had provisions for "putting down insurrections" too....they were unsuccessful... pipoman Jun 2016 #39

...and no democratic process for changing their government jberryhill Jun 2016 #40

Read. pipoman Jun 2016 #41

What was the commonly accepted 18th century definition of a "free state"? Marengo Jun 2016 #46

That's kind of hogwash Dem2 Jun 2016 #80

You don't get to make shit up and peddle it as truth. pipoman Jun 2016 #83

There's 102 pages you'll never read full of facts that you'll never know Dem2 Jun 2016 #85

There was definitely the Southern States concern. As the Virginia debates clearly show. jmg257 Jun 2016 #93

Even then the militias were a bunch of lazy drunks more likely to shoot each other vs. a perceived Dem2 Jun 2016 #95

As Bogus describes - often ineffective - which is why improving their situation was "necessary". jmg257 Jun 2016 #96

I think we can come up with compromises as I suggested in my post Dem2 Jun 2016 #100

So why did those slave-appeasing states like Vermont and Pennsylvania enshrine the same protection X_Digger Jun 2016 #98

How is that relevant to the article or points about the Constitutional Convention and the South? Dem2 Jun 2016 #99

Bogus's paper presupposes his own conclusion-- that the 2nd was an appeasement. X_Digger Jun 2016 #101

Speaking of self-serving bullshit Dem2 Jun 2016 #102

I kick the leg out of Bogus' twaddle, with one simple post, and that's 'self-serving'?? X_Digger Jun 2016 #106

I'm sure you believe that shit too Dem2 Jun 2016 #108

Aww, now I know I've struck a nerve; you resorted to insults. n/t X_Digger Jun 2016 #109

How is your revolver not an artificial penis? Marengo Jun 2016 #116

Washing hogs. Straw Man Jun 2016 #125

Bye Dem2 Jun 2016 #131

Bye. Straw Man Jun 2016 #132

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service eggplant Jun 2016 #133

This ... Straw Man Jun 2016 #134

No they did it with Military Arms and a Trained Army One_Life_To_Give Jun 2016 #128

The hell they didn't. beevul Jun 2016 #130

Nothing jberryhill Jun 2016 #97

Mass-murder means nothing when one is concerned about features that didn't even exist Dem2 Jun 2016 #104

Talking sensibly? jberryhill Jun 2016 #105

I did similar with a nail, paper cone, a tube and an air fitting stuffed into end of said tube Dem2 Jun 2016 #110

Still claiming a Daisy BB rifle is more effective? Still claiming you know more than those... Marengo Jun 2016 #121

Your revolver didn't exist then, either. Marengo Jun 2016 #120

20 seconds for a highly trained infantryman mwrguy Jun 2016 #2

one of my favorite reads KittyWampus Jun 2016 #12

Every time I saw Ned Stark or Boromir I always thought Recursion Jun 2016 #113

Let's not forget jaysunb Jun 2016 #5

What do you think that clause means? jtx Jun 2016 #14

The purpose of the 2A didn't have anything to do with reloading times. ileus Jun 2016 #6

When the First Amendment was penned TeddyR Jun 2016 #7

+1 Just reading posts Jun 2016 #9

The first amendment (like our other enumerated rights) is not absolute etherealtruth Jun 2016 #11

There isn't an amendment with more limitations than the second... pipoman Jun 2016 #27

I would beg to differ, i see the first amendment as having far more .... etherealtruth Jun 2016 #56

And what do you know of gun laws? Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #58

I am at work, I can cite you just as many limitations and laws related to the first amendement etherealtruth Jun 2016 #61

I think the point os that there is a volume of limitations on the 2nd pipoman Jun 2016 #65

I never denied the limitations , simply pointed out that I don't beleive it is the most limited etherealtruth Jun 2016 #69

The courts have drawn a pretty distinct line pipoman Jun 2016 #82

Your claim was that the First Amendment is far more limited than the Second Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #72

you responded to the wrong post.. pipoman Jun 2016 #76

Interesting list PJMcK Jun 2016 #79

Oops, them damn facts again Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #37

Totally different issues involved treestar Jun 2016 #91

According to some posters on DU TeddyR Jun 2016 #103

They don't have to be interpreted the same treestar Jun 2016 #114

The IMT didn't hold that view in Nuremberg, and Julius Streicher hung Marengo Jun 2016 #118

I like that it's harder for people to vote or get a driver's license than buying a gun tenderfoot Jun 2016 #10

Is it really? Abq_Sarah Jun 2016 #48

Then move to Florida tenderfoot Jun 2016 #53

Gee, I looked at the Florida statutes Abq_Sarah Jun 2016 #112

I've done both in the last month Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #59

Not in Florida tenderfoot Jun 2016 #92

So I don't have to fill out a form 4473 and show ID when I get a gun from a dealer in Florida? Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #94

Do tell. Straw Man Jun 2016 #126

Funny how the RIGHT always back off original intent when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, JCMach1 Jun 2016 #16

Correct GulfCoast66 Jun 2016 #17

No you couldn't own a cannon. UtahJosh Jun 2016 #86

Posted from your printing press, no doubt. linuxman Jun 2016 #18

And when the 1st Amendment was penned, I believe it was with quill and ink. Waldorf Jun 2016 #21

Yeah, that's why this is a losing argument for gun control. -nt- Lord Magus Jun 2016 #26

but your right to free expression will still be protected ! Angel Martin Jun 2016 #55

The 2nd was penned because the people had the right, along with the duty, to serve in the militias. jmg257 Jun 2016 #24

Yep, the 2nd was written under the thinking that standing armies would always be a tool of tyranny. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #28

Yep , the people decided they are both sort of obsolete, jmg257 Jun 2016 #38

They had an agrarian society then. We now sell WAR, ARMS, and HEROIN. nt valerief Jun 2016 #30

The Second Amendment Doesn't Specify WHAT Kind of Arms We Can Own Night Watchman Jun 2016 #36

This falls under the restrictions so many pretend don't exist. pipoman Jun 2016 #42

The Minuteman III is too large PJMcK Jun 2016 #81

There also was not sarisataka Jun 2016 #43

What you said. I'm all in favor of flintlock possession meself. Hekate Jun 2016 #49

You mean like these? oneshooter Jun 2016 #115

Your two cents worth was written with 21st Century technology. Just sayin'. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #52

Are you suggesting that you think they were so ignorant... TipTok Jun 2016 #54

doesn't really matter...the first 13 words of the 2nd amendment beachbum bob Jun 2016 #60

"well regulated" those are the words that are the key to effective control liberal N proud Jun 2016 #77

Not really, they relate to an effective militia - 'well-armed and well-trained'...banning jmg257 Jun 2016 #87

All that time to reload makes one lose their stiffy. Darb Jun 2016 #66

The entire bill of rights was written then. We have to either live with the B of R as written-- merrily Jun 2016 #78

+1 treestar Jun 2016 #90

There was also paranoia about having a professional military Warpy Jun 2016 #107

Justifiable paranoia. Straw Man Jun 2016 #124

Ah yes, the old Flintlocks were the only weapons allowed by the 2nd Amendment. Calista241 Jun 2016 #119

And quill pens. Straw Man Jun 2016 #123

They also owned cannons. Adrahil Jun 2016 #135