I would count cannons as "arms", being that they're a gun-type thingamajigger that an individual can operate (with some difficulty, I realize that cannons are typically crew-served). Plenty of people own cannons today, you can buy them through the mail if they're black powder guns, and I don't know of anything that prevents someone from buying a big boat and putting a cannon on board. Same thing if you wanted to buy a really big boat and put a really big gun on it, akin to a battle ship. Good luck paying for the boat and the gun and the crew, though

This is a long read but a good explanation of framer's intent and what "arms" meant.

I guess we're back to whether the framers knew what might be developed 200 years later, like the internet for free speach.

As your saying, if you consider a cannon "arms" and was the most advanced weapon the gov't had, what makes a fella think they put a ceiling on what a citizen could own by them saying arms?

Here's another why, if there was a ceiling that i already pointed out..........

Why could citizens own a repeating rifle when our military hasn't adopted on yet? Citizens had better weapons before our military as late as the 1890's.

If you read the entire article I linked, it makes a darn good argument that the founders intended for the people to have access to any and all weaponry available to the military, which I would agree with. Obviously this creates problems today with nukes, biological weapons, etc that can literally wipe humans off the face of the earth. Then again, I would argue that nukes and germs aren't "arms". The author of the article proposes a 28th amendment to define arms, basically saying it would be limited to the kind of destructive power available in the time of the founders. The important parts are below.


Surely, we can come up with reasonable limits on the right to keep and bear arms. To impose these restrictions correctly and legitimately, we would need to enact a Twenty-Eighth Amendment that fleshes out the Second. Perhaps we could limit the right to keep and bear arms to those weapons with destructive power equivalent to the best heavy weapons of the late Eighteenth or early Nineteenth Centuries. This would permit citizens to arm themselves, but not with weapons so capable of killing vast numbers of other people that the risk would outweigh the benefit. This framework might draw the outer boundary at, say, a mid-size howitzer, a backpack sized flamethrower, a shoulder-launched surface-to-air missile, or an anti-tank mine. Such weapons are destructive, to be sure, yet still comparable to the power wielded by a militiaman of two hundred years ago, standing behind an artillery piece or on the bridge of a privateer’s ship, firing at a crowded enemy troop vessel. Therefore, these weapons should be suitable for private ownership.

The kinds of limits I foresee would also preserve the ability to resist any standing army unleashed against us from Washington, albeit not in the same “toe-to-toe on the field of battle” style used by our ancestors in the Revolutionary War. The battle would revert to a guerilla-style conflict, much like the fighting by the French Resistance in occupied France in World War II, or like the efforts of the Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s. Regardless, no standing army could forever withstand a sustained guerilla war without resorting to weapons of mass destruction … which would irreparably scorch the very earth that the army would seek to rule.

I don't see a link, or i would've read it.

I really doubt you'll change my mind knowing people as late as the civil war could own better "arms" than our military had. In fact, alot of the guys who fought in the civil war bought their own repeaters to use.

I do agree with you that any nutcase shouldn't own a nuke, but then we are at, who decides at what weapon we are allowed?

Speak about a slippery slope. It comes down to.......Do we interpret what our constitution says or abide by it?

The link is the word "this".

I think we're actually agreeing here. (did you just feel a large disturbance in the force, too? ) I think that per the 2A, there are no limits on what the people can own, that the framers intended us to be able to own anything the military had. Obviously if we put that into the context of today, that creates problems. The article argues that there should be another constitutional amendment to put reasonable limits (not what most people would consider reasonable, mind you) on what we the people can own.

How bout I wanna get a phazer?

Actually, her historic ignorance was appalling to me. Militias were used in the civil war and probably militarily significant right up to the 20th century. Large standing armies were uncommon, during and after the revolutionary war, not because they could not be afforded, but because they were unnecessary.


Theoretically god give rights, but in reality man gives them and takes them away. Heck, Ginsberg just made up one in the gay marriage right. Pretty sure god didn't give that one.

You'll shoot your eye out lol. Still no RBG. This article says if she keeps her word she will retire. Any gentlemen bets on if she will??? I say she won't...

Past comments about retirement from RBG.

Ol' Ginsburg made the (mostly) right decision in the Obergefell vs Hodges case, though she decided it on the wrong grounds. Marriage between a man and woman, and that cant be redefined. If the supreme court decided that all horses are now cows, cows would still be cows and horses would still be horses. In the same sense, a man and woman that commit to each other for life is still a marriage, and two men or two women is something else. That being said, the government has no business telling people what they can or cant call their relationship, no matter how right or wrong they are. In fact, the government has no business in private relationships at all And there's no way she'll retire, liberals would hang her from the Washington monument if she let trump get another pick They turned on Anthony Kennedy when he retired, going on and on about how selfish Mr Kennedy was, how could he do this to the country, blah blah blah. The guy was 81 years old, heaven forbid he spend some time with his wife and kids and grandkids and enjoy a retirement.

Here is legislative law that defines the modern militia.

"Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.[16][17][18][19] "


I've been a part of both militias.

Being men appear to be only in the unorganized milita, maybe we should first start disarming feminist.

No, she ruled wrong. The right to marriage was another supreme court made up right. Just keep making up rights and the States will not be able to govern as representative governments. I agree people can marry whatever they want, but governments do not have to recognize them.

Aside from the purpose of tax incentives, what purpose is there in the government being involved in recognizing marriage?

Mike

This exactly. Dirt you said people can marry whoever they want, but government doesn't have to recognize them. I would ask, why should government "recognize" anybody's personal relationship, whatever they call it?

The federal government has zero business in marriage, gay or otherwise.

If you don't have a will, the government needs a way to divvy up your assets when you die.

X2.

X3