General Discussion

sarisataka

(22,372 posts)

55. Wouldn't that reasoning

Thu Jun 23, 2016, 10:32 AM

Jun 2016

rather make the organization of the National Guard unconstitutional? The Federal government seized control of the militias which were guaranteed to the states?

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

81 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The would be mass killer back when the 2nd Amendment was conceived.... [View all] WillParkinson Jun 2016 OP

This is what the 1st amendment was written for. former9thward Jun 2016 #1

When are you going to drop the act? ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2016 #7

I will use speech on the internet to correct your error regarding 18th-Century weapons appal_jack Jun 2016 #10

You're apparently confused as to who you are replying to ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2016 #11

You're apparently confused about the nature of DU... appal_jack Jun 2016 #16

You're also free to not make any lick of sense ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2016 #17

"all the best people are entirely bonkers" appal_jack Jun 2016 #20

That particular quote was NOT from Alice... Herman4747 Jun 2016 #53

True. Best suitable graphic I could find, though. nt appal_jack Jun 2016 #71

The rate of fire of the Girandoni non-firearm was...? jberryhill Jun 2016 #27

That would depend on how many pre charged reservoirs the shooter was carrying. Marengo Jun 2016 #69

There was also the puckle gun... beevul Jun 2016 #28

and pintobean Jun 2016 #12

No one's arguing that. treestar Jun 2016 #19

Doesnt translate to a good metaphor at all. stevenleser Jun 2016 #23

Nice theory. former9thward Jun 2016 #70

It was a sad dodge, not clever at all. Rex Jun 2016 #75

Privately-owned artillery units were not unknown during the Revolution jmowreader Jun 2016 #79

Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2016 #67

"The administration claims the Orlando killer was radicalized by the internet." Rex Jun 2016 #74

A sword would have been most effective at close range in 1787. leveymg Jun 2016 #2

What were muskets and bayonets in that time? Marengo Jun 2016 #4

During that era, a soldier or militia member who trained regularly could load and fire 2x a minute. haele Jun 2016 #14

How much of that did you recycle? leveymg Jun 2016 #25

Too bad those militias were made from the body of the people... jmg257 Jun 2016 #39

Are you familiar with the Militia Act of 1792? jmg257 Jun 2016 #40

Yes, every able-bodied male citizen was a member of the militia. haele Jun 2016 #42

Unless you were enrolled in the militia, you couldn't keep and bear 8-pounders. leveymg Jun 2016 #47

Interesting - (though a bit irrelevant) What laws mandated you couldn't own 8-pounders? jmg257 Jun 2016 #50

As a matter of law, adult males were enrolled in militia, as a matter of practice, cannon were leveymg Jun 2016 #51

Agreed. The people were to supply themselves with personal arms, jmg257 Jun 2016 #52

That's how I read it, as well. But, there's an additional twist. leveymg Jun 2016 #54

Wouldn't that reasoning sarisataka Jun 2016 #55

It does seem the creation of the NG was a usurption of power - the Congress was given powers jmg257 Jun 2016 #58

Is that what will allow us sarisataka Jun 2016 #60

Yes, if enough of the people demand it - then it would come down to the supreme court jmg257 Jun 2016 #63

You are correct sarisataka Jun 2016 #64

Yes - agreed, it is sad...well-intentioned as it may be. nt jmg257 Jun 2016 #65

Tell that to Dwight D. Eisenhower. leveymg Jun 2016 #59

"the 2nd lost its reason for being and relevance half a century ago." NOW we are talking! jmg257 Jun 2016 #56

Look up "Little Rock, September 24, 1957", the date Eisenhower nationalized the Ark Nat'l Guard leveymg Jun 2016 #57

Former F&I reenactor here. I put together a RN land detachment impression... Marengo Jun 2016 #66

I used to do needle, pillow, and crochet lace along with tatting for 15th to 18th cent costumes. haele Jun 2016 #68

You're incorrect regarding private ownership of cannons. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #6

Yep. Private ownership of cannons was legal, but uncommon due to their expense. Xithras Jun 2016 #13

As there was no other source than Army surplus, one had to request purchase from the Gov't leveymg Jun 2016 #49

Are you familiar with the fact that the US Government registered these armed merchantships? leveymg Jun 2016 #48

LOL. If they do that they might learn about privateers and pirates! Rex Jun 2016 #77

Or how the US privatized foreign policy and legalized piracy 225 years before Blackwater leveymg Jun 2016 #80

I bet some people would pass out if they knew foreign nationals fought in Uncle Sam's army! Rex Jun 2016 #81

The cartoons accuracy evidently has some vexed. Rex Jun 2016 #76

Could you imagine Tony Montana in those times? Initech Jun 2016 #3

...you said, exercising your 1st Amendment rights with 21st Century technology. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #5

I keep trying to load bullets into the Internet Wednesdays Jun 2016 #8

you think this is some great argument treestar Jun 2016 #18

No, it actually is a good argument. Shandris Jun 2016 #22

It's a terrible argument. You couldn't own a cannon back then which shows how even then, the stevenleser Jun 2016 #24

Nonsense. beevul Jun 2016 #29

Letters of marque and reprisal reinforce my point. Do you know what did it take to get one? stevenleser Jun 2016 #30

No, they really don't. beevul Jun 2016 #31

Yes they really do. The right to bear arms is a personal right, not a right of a ship. stevenleser Jun 2016 #33

But it DOES hold. beevul Jun 2016 #36

The right? Straw Man Jun 2016 #43

Bullshit, canons, on merchant ships or carts, were privately owned. Who told you this horseshit? n/t X_Digger Jun 2016 #34

So, let me get this straight.... Just reading posts Jun 2016 #32

Nope. An amendment that was meant to be restrictive was erroneously compared to one that wasnt. stevenleser Jun 2016 #35

They're both meant to be restrictive, of government... beevul Jun 2016 #37

Neither the 1st nor the 2nd Amendment restrict rights, they both protect them. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #38

The whole purpose of the 2nd was to ensure the effeciency of the militias. jmg257 Jun 2016 #41

Back to 10th grade civics with you. X_Digger Jun 2016 #72

This was the rapid-fire assault weapon back then Crabby Appleton Jun 2016 #9

This message was self-deleted by its author jmg257 Jun 2016 #15

mass murder 17th Century style Angel Martin Jun 2016 #21

Guy Fawkes ... Straw Man Jun 2016 #44

yes nt Angel Martin Jun 2016 #45

Excellent underpants Jun 2016 #26

Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #46

Historically mass killers were poisoners Sen. Walter Sobchak Jun 2016 #61

It says nothing about ammunition, so I say ban it and all components. alarimer Jun 2016 #62

Hey now there's a novel idea! jmg257 Jun 2016 #73

NRA survey says Rex Jun 2016 #78