(**snip**)
The intent of the second Amendment was to insure that every able-bodied man in America would be armed in the event that the federal government or America’s own standing army turned on its people.
Our founders were keenly aware that armament would continue to improve and become more efficient and thus ... the 2nd Amendment has Shall Not Be Infringed as it's foundation.
It wasn't just the government that possessed sophisticated arms ... the Common Folk of the era owned what today's gun grabbers would call militarized weapons.
By the time the 2nd amendment was adopted, (December 15, 1791) assault weapons already existed.
Most of the patriots that fought against British rule brought their own fire arms to the fight or appropriated them from the British. The founders believed that to have "well organized militias" the people would have to have their own arms to protect from the tyranny of another out of control government.
Private citizens owned cannons.
The Constitution refers to Letters of Marque. Private warships.
Read properly, Joe Schmoe, if he can afford it, can have an Abrams in his garage.
This armored tank is fully functional,” the ArmsList classified states. “The turret is fully operational [...] The main gun is registered as a Destructive Device with the ATF and comes with 10 projectiles. More projectiles are available.
(http://i65.tinypic.com/14e2rud.jpg)
(http://i63.tinypic.com/2utojy9.jpg)
But is it legal? And can anybody just up and buy something with the insane firepower of a tank or grenade launcher? According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, yes, totally legal.
If they’re operational, you can register those actual cannons [as an NFA weapon],” Russ Morrison, a spokesman for the ATF, told the Daily Dot. “And if they’re sold, they’d have to go through a transfer to make sure everything’s OK, and have it registered, as well.
http://www.armslist.com/posts/4616205/oklahoma-city-oklahoma-nfa-firearms-for-sale--fully-operational-main-battle-tank-with-120mm-live-cannon
If you can get to the Silk Road (the Dark Web), you'll find way more goodies for sale.I assume<<---(yea, I know), I am guessing that the term dark net represents all of those sites that haven't been "indexed" by Google?
It's the most frightening part of the Internet.
I assume<<---(yea, I know), I am guessing that the term dark net represents all of those sites that haven't been "indexed" by Google?
(Kind of like it was before Google existed.) :shrug:
The “dark web” is a part of the world wide web that requires special software to access. Once inside, web sites and other services can be accessed through a browser in much the same way as the normal web.
However, some sites are effectively “hidden”, in that they have not been indexed by a search engine and can only be accessed if you know the address of the site. Special markets also operate within the dark web called, “darknet markets”, which mainly sell illegal products like drugs and firearms, paid for in the cryptocurrency Bitcoin.
There is even a crowdfunded “Assassination Market”, where users can pay towards having someone assassinated.
Because of the the dark web’s almost total anonymity, it has been the place of choice for groups wanting to stay hidden online from governments and law enforcement agencies. On the one hand there have been whistleblowers using the dark web to communicate with journalists, but more frequently it has been used by paedophile groups, terrorists and criminals to keep their dealings secret.
I’m thinking about picking up a new firearm before the pending Assault Weapons Ban…
https://www.slickguns.com/product/colt-1877-bulldog-gatling-gun-brass-45-70-government-1825-inch-carriage-model-5526168?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-191
I did just that I do have to be very careful opening the case though That little rascal has a tendency to run off on its own and start shooting people.... /s
The intent of the second Amendment was to insure that every able-bodied man in America would be armed in the event that the federal government or America’s own standing army turned on its people.
@mrclose
Pretty sure that at the time of writing, there were no such thing as hobby grade guns. They were all military grade.
Interesting! People would be better able to aim and shoot their own weapons rather the ones furnished by someone else which still would apply. This all makes more and more sense.
http://www.armslist.com/posts/4616205/oklahoma-city-oklahoma-nfa-firearms-for-sale--fully-operational-main-battle-tank-with-120mm-live-cannon
Because of the the dark web’s almost total anonymity, it has been the place of choice for groups wanting to stay hidden online from governments and law enforcement agencies. On the one hand there have been whistleblowers using the dark web to communicate with journalists, but more frequently it has been used by paedophile groups, terrorists and criminals to keep their dealings secret.
My layout (in this post) of the page disappeared but the link works fine.
(This was actually my first attempt in creating a web page)
BTW: No ads, no popups at link! :beer:
The 2nd Amendment Musket Myth (Or "I Want A Machine Gun")
https://mrclose.neocities.org/DUPE.HTML
The whole "the founders didn't know about certain weapons" argument is ridiculous because the founders didn't know about any modern thing that was only available decades or centuries later. It's a stupid argument.Members of the Maryland Militia found this out when the State was invaded by Pennsylvania and Massachusetts Militias, sparking the Pratt Street Riots, and the first fatalities of the Civil War. Arms assembled in the armories were not recovered. .
The founders didn't know about certain weapons? So what, what was available then and what is available now was not the intent of the founders.
The founders meant that private citizens should be armed. And they certainly didn't mean for their weapons to be collected by a central authority after an insurrection was concluded.
And even the part about there having to be a militia is not exclusive of private citizens keeping their firearms for other uses. It's just the gun grabbers intent to put things in the constitution that aren't there.
If the founders had intended that private citizens could not keep firearms on their person, they would have put it in writing.
They never did and, of course, would have thought it crazy to believe private citizens could not keep firearms at home or on their person.
They knew that all firearms secured in central locations could be easily taken by an oppressive authority thereby totally undermining the idea of private citizens rebelling against an oppressive government.
If the 2nd only applies to muskets, then the 1st only covers Colonial printing presses.Worth repeating
If the 2nd only applies to muskets, then the 1st only covers Colonial printing presses.Excellent point. I think the leftists aren't quite that stupid. They're being disingenuous. Obviously, The Founders meant for the citizenry to be properly armed with the weapons available at the time.
Excellent point. I think the leftists aren't quite that stupid. They're being disingenuous. Obviously, The Founders meant for the citizenry to be properly armed with the weapons available at the time.They may not be that dumb, but they hope to be playing to an audience that is, especially after decades of propaganda and nonsense.
It's patently ludicrous to think that if the revolution had occurred one hundred years later or more, The Founders wouldn't have mentioned the repeating rifles, six guns, gatling guns available by that time.
But again, the gun grabbers are simply being disingenuous. They're really not quite that dumb. Or maybe they are.
If the 2nd only applies to muskets, then the 1st only covers Colonial printing presses.
But again, the gun grabbers are simply being disingenuous. They're really not quite that dumb. Or maybe they are.
They may not be that dumb, but they hope to be playing to an audience that is, especially after decades of propaganda and nonsense.
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.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.â€
Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery".
Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.â€
Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.â€
Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals- that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government- that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government.— Ayn Rand
I think that this is even more relevant today than when I first posted it!
At least, at that time a good majority of true conservatives knew and believed what the "Right To Bear Arms" meant!
With the NRA and Trump approving of the ban on 'bump stocks' and the heated rhetoric coming from both sides after these mass murders ..I fear that the ever so slow erosion of the second amendment will now go into overdrive!
I actually saw some idiot on Twitter trying to use the “The 2nd Amendment was written for Muskets “ BS today.
@txradioguy
The country is on it's way out as a Constitutional Republic because the people are an ignorant mass!
Even within my own family when I bring up the fact that all gun laws are unconstitutional, they look at me like I'm nuts!
They'll argue that each state has a right ... blah, blah, blah and I'll say, No, a state doesn't have the right to violate the constitution either!
More ignorant stares. **nononono*
The vast majority of people who believe that the government has the right to regulate gun ownership by passing new laws ... have a poor understanding of our Constitution!
Most of the arguments about the Second Amendment ... made by both sides, revolve around a single assumption - that the Second Amendment grants a citizen the right to bear arms.
What both sides fail to understand is that the Second Amendment grants no such right, in fact, the Constitution grants no rights at all!
Most of the arguments about the Second Amendment ... made by both sides, revolve around a single assumption - that the Second Amendment grants a citizen the right to bear arms.Then why are we the only country that has that right? Why don't we just rip up the darn Constitution and throw it on a funeral pyre... we don't need it, obviously!
What both sides fail to understand is that the Second Amendment grants no such right, in fact, the Constitution grants no rights at all!
What the Constitution does do is identify what powers the people grant to the government.
Then why are we the only country that has that right? Why don't we just rip up the darn Constitution and throw it on a funeral pyre... we don't need it, obviously!The Constitution delineates the narrow powers granted by the People to Government, and retains the rest to the People and the States. The 2nd Amendment, and others in the Bill of Rights as well exist to remind Government that these are Our Rights, and to be left alone. No other country quite has that level of proscription on Government Power, and the Rights of their people have been freely usurped by their governments.
The Constitution delineates the narrow powers granted by the People to Government, and retains the rest to the People and the States. The 2nd Amendment, and others in the Bill of Rights as well exist to remind Government that these are Our Rights, and to be left alone. No other country quite has that level of proscription on Government Power, and the Rights of their people have been freely usurped by their governments.
@mrclose
The simple way to explain it is that the Bill of Rights RECOGNIZES AN EXISTING RIGHT WE ALL HAVE BY VIRTUE OF BEING BORN IN AMERICA.
Since these rights are BIRTHRIGHTS,no government has the legal authority to restrict them or deny them to American citizens unless there are special circumstances proven in a court of law for EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE.
(https://www.denverpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/20130429__native_american_billboard_gun_rights_coloradop1-1.jpg)
(https://www.denverpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/20130429__native_american_billboard_gun_rights_coloradop1-1.jpg)There's a tee shirt you can buy out west that shows a photo of four armed Indians with the words:
@sneakypeteQuoteWhich is where we run into a problem.
Every time there is a "mass shooting", it gives the gun grabbers another opportunity to write new Unconstitutional Laws and another chance to take away the law abiding citizen's right to Self protection!
Not really. Yes,they are doing it in many cities and states,but the laws they are passing are not legal. Which is why they will be VERY careful to arrest anyone with political connections or enough wealth and influence to take them to court.
In short,they get away with it because we LET them get away with it.QuoteThese laws will only apply to people who are law abiding, who have never hurt or killed anyone!
Criminals don't follow laws!
Seems so simple even the typical Dim could understand it,doesn't it?QuoteWe have surrendered our 'Constitutional Rights' to the whims of whomever holds the reigns of power at the moment and to Judges who in many cases are nothing more than .. Black Robed Tyrants!
(As Mark Levin explains in his book, "Men In Black." )
He,right,too.