The 2nd Amendment was created with flintlock muzzleloaders in mind.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I believe you but my point is that the wording isn't clear and Section 8 actually muddies things up a bit more.

So yeah, in practice things may have been that way but that isn't what I'm talking about.

I suppose it's a good idea to assume that our founding fathers were not infallible, and they had a tendency to speak in generalities. But that's what local ordinances and laws are for. To narrow things down to practicalities and specific instances in a real-life and local situation.

a reply to: Blue Shift

True but it is the constitution, what local ordinances and laws must comply with so maybe a little clearer language would have helped. Of course, that ship has sailed.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Blue Shift

True but it is the constitution, what local ordinances and laws must comply with so maybe a little clearer language would have helped. Of course, that ship has sailed.

The "clearer language" was all considered well known and common knowledge at the time. So, having it too specific in the national version would allow each locality to draft specific legislation to comply with the Constitution in more details, based upon their own situations.

See, this is what many today do not understand. States were much more powerful during that period. They were NOT wiling to cede their power to a national/federal government. That is what they feared most, as that is what the crown represented to them. So, having it more general, and described in more detail by use of the supporting documents (i.e. the Federalist Papers) would suffice to provide the ability for the states to exercise their own power to their local electorate.

It is a shame this is not taught in schools anymore, as it would clear up a lot of this confusion and lack of understandings. All this information is out there if one really wants to know.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Yah the states formed the federal government. Some might argue that the original 13 states formed the federal government and then other states were ceded from the feds. But still, I think the argument holds, the states are sovereign.

And the first amendment was only created with newspapers in mind?

a reply to: Krakatoa

I didn't say specific, I said clearer.

The 8th is 16 words and it took a SCOTUS ruling to apply it to states. I know about everything you mentiond but it doesn't refute my point.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

True that.

When I was doing autopsies in Africa during part of my training, the most common method of homicide was 'brick to the head'.

Again and again, without guns or even knives (machetes) in the area where I was working, they still found a way to kill by another means. It is what it is.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: FlyingFox
How then, in your opinion, does the "well-regulated" part fit in?

In the context of legality and arms, "well regulated" simply meant in good working order. In other words, the founding fathers were champions of not only Americans being armed, but in Americans being armed with firearms which were good quality and properly maintained.

Do you mean interchangeable parts?

I never heard of that interpretation before.

It looks like Jefferson picked up on it after the war....

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interchangeable_parts

en.wikipedia.org...

In the late 18th century, French General Jean-Baptiste Vaquette de Gribeauval promoted standardized weapons in what became known as the Système Gribeauval after it was issued as a royal order in 1765. (Its focus at the time was artillery more than muskets or handguns.) One of the accomplishments of the system was that solid cast cannons were bored to precise tolerances, which allowed the walls to be thinner than cannons poured with hollow cores. However, because cores were often off center, the wall thickness determined the size of the bore. Standardized boring allowed cannon to be shorter without sacrificing accuracy and range because of the tighter fit of the shells. It also allowed standardization of the shells.[1] Before the 18th century, devices such as guns were made one at a time by gunsmiths, and each gun was unique. If one single component of a firearm needed a replacement, the entire firearm either had to be sent to an expert gunsmith for custom repairs, or discarded and replaced by another firearm. During the 18th and early 19th centuries, the idea of replacing these methods with a system of interchangeable manufacture was gradually developed.[4][5] The development took decades and involved many people.[4][5] Gribeauval provided patronage to Honoré Blanc, who attempted to implement the Système Gribeauval at the musket level. By around 1778, Honoré Blanc began producing some of the first firearms with interchangeable flint locks, although they were carefully made by craftsmen. Blanc demonstrated in front of a committee of scientists that his muskets could be fitted with flint locks picked at random from a pile of parts.[1] Muskets with interchangeable locks caught the attention of Thomas Jefferson through the efforts of Honoré Blanc when Jefferson was Ambassador to France in 1785. Jefferson tried to persuade Blanc to move to America, but was not successful, so he wrote to the American Secretary of War with the idea, and when he returned to the USA he worked to fund its development. President George Washington approved of the idea, and by 1798 a contract was issued to Eli Whitney for 12,000 muskets built under the new system.[6] Louis de Tousard, who fled the French Revolution, joined the U.S. Corp of Artillerists in 1795 and wrote an influential artillerist's manual that stressed the importance of standardization.[1]

no sir....naw

the 2nd amendment was to stomp tyrranny

drop the friggin mic son

The first amendment was created with feather pens and paper in mind... mic drop

a reply to: AdKiller

but remember that document was created by some of the greatest minds of the time !
and do you think they couldnt figure out in the future we'd have even more advanced weaponry

Thomas Jefferson certainly could imagine it , so I fail to see your point!

a reply to: Fowlerstoad

the greatest human weapon is the mind !

you dont need guns ,just your thoughts
and you can defeat most things

right who needs a gun when your fist is a decent weapon, its free and never runs out of ammo!

a reply to: sapien82

Until someone shoots your fist, anyway

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Of course , I totally agree , but who goes to a knife party with just their bare hands
and who shows up to a gunfight with a knife ?

Know your enemy as Sun Tzu once said !
and that is exactly what I think Thomas Jefferson and his friends had in mind for the future!
they knew the enemy of a tyrannical government would advance their weaponry
so they sought to protect against the future by leaving it more open ended

originally posted by: AdKiller
Because that's all the government had.

Now they got drone tanks and invisibility cloaks. We still shooting muzzleloaders, relatively speaking.

The second amendment was created to assure we have access to the same firepower and military training as our government. The only reason anyone should give up their guns is if they are trading them in for coward tanks and coward bombers. But then you lose your manhood and the only pride worth having. What kind of [snipped] refuses to see the man they are killing? Not worth it. So stick with your guns. And ignore all unconstitutional "laws". Local police depts should be suing the military for equal access. Your local militia will be lead by local law enforcement, and is the only hope you'll have against the coming cyborg army.

Where's my nukes to protect me against the nut in the white house with his finger on his button? North Korea is standing in for the American people I suppose?

edit on Sun Jan 14 2018 by DontTreadOnMe because: Terms and Conditions

NO! It was created with YOU in mind.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Of course , I totally agree , but who goes to a knife party with just their bare hands
and who shows up to a gunfight with a knife ?

Know your enemy as Sun Tzu once said !

I'm not the one who brought a pitch fork.

a reply to: worldstarcountry
Oh, that pesky Matthew 5:17!

a reply to: burgerbuddy

in my opinion , Id rather just not show up to a fight , over perceived territory or ownership of land or right or money.

If it were up to me we would all just abandon civilisation and return to our hunter gatherer nomadic life
I mean what really has civilisation brought us apart from misery and the destruction of our planet and our humanity !

Just to say " hey i was right , look everyone I was right ! "

Actually to clear the difference up a bit, think back to John Brown and the capturing of the Harper’s Ferry National Armory. The locals in Virginia had a mish-mash of muskets and rifles but the armory was all high quality rifles owned by the Federal government. The plan was to arm the runaway slaves to liberate other plantations.

The original Red Dawn also has that idea of individuals fighting off an invasion until better arms were appropriated. But being just kids, they didn’t know about the greater resistance that was better organized that they heard about on the radio. John has a long mustache was the go code for D-Day in WW2 and probably had a similar meaning then as well, since the war was over sometime afterwards.

But the whole idea of a militia is to provide resistance until an army can be organized, equipped and shipped to the area. Pawns to block and confound until your knights and rooks can move into position, if you prefer the chess analogy.