What would our forefathers do if...

[Flash]

BULLSHIT. Like they did the "Whiskey Rebellion?" Like they did with "Fries Rebellion?" Learn some history then come back.

The federal government has the power to put down rebellions but not deal with local school shootings.

 

[smb]

The Continental Army was supplied with privately owned cannons (and warships) through out the duration of the war. It was 100% expected that such things would be privately owned and is implied in Article 1, Section 8.

Really?

Please point out where that is please. I will even post the offending section.

I don't see where it says oh by the way get all your weapons from private citizens.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It's not 1776 Shithead

And...................what, Mason??

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Not an argument

Your reply was a non sequitur.

 

[smb]

The federal government has the power to put down rebellions but not deal with local school shootings.

Also the bulk of the cannon's and other heavy weaponry used by the Continental Army was captured from the British not provided by private citizens.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Thanks. From your article:

" While the detachable air reservoir was capable of around 30 shots it took nearly 1,500 strokes of a hand pump to fill those reservoirs. Later, a wagon-mounted pump was provided. The reservoirs, made from hammered sheet iron held together with rivets and sealed by brazing, proved very difficult to manufacture using the techniques of the period and were always in short supply."

Hardly a weapon that could be handily used in a modern school or public venue massacre, is it? It wouldn't even work well in ancient times battle, unless the operator had a *lot* of covering fire while he pumped it up.

I repeat -- the framers of the 2nd Amendment did not foresee the advance of weaponry to the stage that it is now.

In your continued ignorance, you failed to realize that an empty reservoir could easily be switched out for a full one; ie. "a detachable air reservoir".

And if you had bothered to read farther down and educated yourself even more, you would have run across this little tidbit; "Contemporary regulations of 1788 required that each rifleman, in addition to the rifle itself, be equipped with three compressed air reservoirs (two spare and one attached to the rifle)"

 

[smb]

The federal government has the power to put down rebellions but not deal with local school shootings.

Again if you knew history you would know that the "Whiskey Rebellion" and "Fries Rebellion" were anything but rebellions. They were tax protests put down by the Federal government. The point is that many of the founding fathers did not and would not hesitate to use Federal power to respond to criminal acts.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Also the bulk of the cannon's and other heavy weaponry used by the Continental Army was captured from the British not provided by private citizens.

Which doesn't preclude the fact that citizens were not prohibited from owning a cannon, if they so desired.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Again if you knew history you would know that the "Whiskey Rebellion" and "Fries Rebellion" were anything but rebellions. They were tax protests put down by the Federal government. The point is that many of the founding fathers did not and would not hesitate to use Federal power to respond to criminal acts.

So they weren't school shootings!!

Which was the point.

 

[smb]

So they weren't school shootings!!

Which was the point.

Once again you miss the point entirely dum911. Big surprise.

 

[smb]

Which doesn't preclude the fact that citizens were not prohibited from owning a cannon, if they so desired.

Again do you really believe that they would not have passed legislation to that effect if a student used a cannon to bombard his school? Are you really that stupid to think that?

Ohhh sorry forgot who I was talking to for second. Of course you are that stupid.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Once again you miss the point entirely dum911. Big surprise.

Your reply was a non sequitur.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Again do you really believe that they would not have passed legislation to that effect if a student used a cannon to bombard his school? Are you really that stupid to think that?

Ohhh sorry forgot who I was talking to for second. Of course you are that stupid.

Your reply was a non sequitur.

 

[/MSG/]

Really?

Please point out where that is please. I will even post the offending section.

I don't see where it says oh by the way get all your weapons from private citizens.

Right here:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

I.E. to grant private citizens, whom would be operating their privately owned and privately armed vessels, Letters of Marque. Ergo, it was expected as a matter of course that at least a portion of the citizenry would own the most powerful weapons of the era, else such a power (which we still maintain as a nation to this day by the way) would be meaningless.

 

[/MSG/]

It's actually based on the article you linked to, but sure. Whatever.

Really? Because I don't recall seeing "Hardly a weapon that could be handily used in a modern school or public venue massacre, is it? It wouldn't even work well in ancient times battle" anywhere in that page I linked. That sounds a lot like your supposition, based on ignorance.

 

[smb]

Right here:


I.E. to grant private citizens, whom would be operating their privately owned and privately armed vessels, Letters of Marque. Ergo, it was expected as a matter of course that at least a portion of the citizenry would own the most powerful weapons of the era, else such a power (which we still maintain as a nation to this day by the way) would be meaningless.

Wow is that a stretch. What that means is basically commissioning privateers. Since the use of privateers is now banned by International Maritime Law I would say your "point" is a little more than just moot.

 

[/MSG/]

Wow is that a stretch. What that means is basically commissioning privateers. Since the use of privateers is now banned by International Maritime Law I would say your "point" is a little more than just moot.

It's proof of intent, which is what you asked for. You can't say "well, the founders didn't mean it because the U.N. says it's illegal now". That is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

 

[CFM]

Well, when the indigenous ppl attacked a village, they were generally massacred later by armed citizens or soldiers.

But if the attack was done by one of their own, they'd try and hang him. Like you said, not likely to have a massacre with a musket though. When the 2nd amendment was penned, today's armaments couldn't even be imagined, much less imagined in the hands of ppl who have little to no formal training or experience with them.

When the 1st amendment was penned there was no internet. That means if you want to exercise your right of free speech, get off the internet, write me a letter with a quill pen, give it to a guy on horseback, and have him deliver it to me.

 

[Bourbon]

When the 1st amendment was penned there was no internet. That means if you want to exercise your right of free speech, get off the internet, write me a letter with a quill pen, give it to a guy on horseback, and have him deliver it to me.

 

[MAGA MAN]

At the time of the fore father's a school attacker could do more harm with a sword than a slow loading musket!

Or a knife, or an axe...