Probably true, but you never really know.
I always find it kind of funny when grabbers say "The 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets". If that's the case, then the 1st Amendment only applies to snail mail and physical newspapers.
Advertisement
by Pax Nerdvana » Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:54 pm
by The Two Jerseys » Thu Sep 03, 2020 8:07 pm
Pax Nerdvana wrote:Cordel One wrote:I don't think he's gonna brutally dismember Bugs Bunny with the scythe
Probably true, but you never really know.
I always find it kind of funny when grabbers say "The 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets". If that's the case, then the 1st Amendment only applies to snail mail and physical newspapers.
by Novus America » Thu Sep 03, 2020 8:10 pm
Pax Nerdvana wrote:Cordel One wrote:I don't think he's gonna brutally dismember Bugs Bunny with the scythe
Probably true, but you never really know.
I always find it kind of funny when grabbers say "The 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets". If that's the case, then the 1st Amendment only applies to snail mail and physical newspapers.
by Pax Nerdvana » Thu Sep 03, 2020 8:13 pm
Novus America wrote:Pax Nerdvana wrote:Probably true, but you never really know.
I always find it kind of funny when grabbers say "The 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets". If that's the case, then the 1st Amendment only applies to snail mail and physical newspapers.
Exactly. The reason the early militia acts (but not the Constitution which deliberately does not specify such specifics) specifically REQUIRED every able bodied (well free white) male 18-45 own a musket or muzzle loading rifle (plus 24 or 20 rounds de of ammo) was those were the standard military arms of the time. It was designed to adapt to the technology of the time, not the other way around.
Actually this calls into question the restrictions on automatics, if we updated the militia act so that everyone had the equivalent it would probably require everyone able bodied (regardless of race or gender because equality and all) own an M-16 or M-4, presumably with the happy switch still on it (although admittedly it is just silly on the M-4).
The Two Jerseys wrote:Pax Nerdvana wrote:Probably true, but you never really know.
I always find it kind of funny when grabbers say "The 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets". If that's the case, then the 1st Amendment only applies to snail mail and physical newspapers.
And unamplified live speech.
And religions that existed in 1787 (sorry Mormons).
by Violent Mike » Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:39 am
Pax Nerdvana wrote:Novus America wrote:
Exactly. The reason the early militia acts (but not the Constitution which deliberately does not specify such specifics) specifically REQUIRED every able bodied (well free white) male 18-45 own a musket or muzzle loading rifle (plus 24 or 20 rounds de of ammo) was those were the standard military arms of the time. It was designed to adapt to the technology of the time, not the other way around.
Actually this calls into question the restrictions on automatics, if we updated the militia act so that everyone had the equivalent it would probably require everyone able bodied (regardless of race or gender because equality and all) own an M-16 or M-4, presumably with the happy switch still on it (although admittedly it is just silly on the M-4).
I wholeheartedly agree. I believe it was Colonel Jeff Cooper who said that no American can truly be a citizen without being qualified on the M16.The Two Jerseys wrote:And unamplified live speech.
And religions that existed in 1787 (sorry Mormons).
And nothing more then hardcover books.
by Gig em Aggies » Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:42 am
by Violent Mike » Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:52 am
by Pax Nerdvana » Fri Sep 04, 2020 8:32 am
Violent Mike wrote:Can refuse to have troops quartered in your home, unless you live in a travel trailer.
by Kowani » Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:19 am
by Telconi » Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:20 am
by Kowani » Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:26 am
by Telconi » Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:29 am
by Novus America » Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:37 am
by Kowani » Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:38 am
by Telconi » Fri Sep 04, 2020 11:42 am
by Grinning Dragon » Fri Sep 04, 2020 11:59 am
Violent Mike wrote:Can refuse to have troops quartered in your home, unless you live in a travel trailer.
by Kowani » Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:18 pm
by Novus America » Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:45 pm
by Kowani » Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:06 pm
Novus America wrote:Kowani wrote:From a legalistic point of view, you're right.
And then this is a good argument “assault weapons” bans are unconstitutional, as the Second Amendment clearly was designed so that at least all “free white men” could own (actually were REQUIRED to own) the commonly used military small arms of the time (as the supporting legislation, the militia act, requires such weapons to be owned by said person).
As the AR-15, AR-10 and M-14 are contemporary equivalents to the Charleville 1766 and Kentucky Long Rifle types specified as REQUIRED to be owned in the Militia Act, (you bought you own and could pick which one you wanted) they should be allowed for ownership, at least for all members of the militia, which includes ALL able bodied men 17-45 (the racial thing was removed, and the age lowered to 17 in subsequent amendments).
But the whole men only seems pretty damn sexist, so in the name of equality women should be allowed to own the same weapons as men.
by Telconi » Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:08 pm
Kowani wrote:Novus America wrote:
And then this is a good argument “assault weapons” bans are unconstitutional, as the Second Amendment clearly was designed so that at least all “free white men” could own (actually were REQUIRED to own) the commonly used military small arms of the time (as the supporting legislation, the militia act, requires such weapons to be owned by said person).
As the AR-15, AR-10 and M-14 are contemporary equivalents to the Charleville 1766 and Kentucky Long Rifle types specified as REQUIRED to be owned in the Militia Act, (you bought you own and could pick which one you wanted) they should be allowed for ownership, at least for all members of the militia, which includes ALL able bodied men 17-45 (the racial thing was removed, and the age lowered to 17 in subsequent amendments).
But the whole men only seems pretty damn sexist, so in the name of equality women should be allowed to own the same weapons as men.
No. Superseded by the Militia Act of 1908, which while composing the militia of "every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able; bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age," does not require universal weapons ownership.
Also, it does now include women, but only women who are members of the National Guard.
by Novus America » Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:16 pm
Kowani wrote:Novus America wrote:
And then this is a good argument “assault weapons” bans are unconstitutional, as the Second Amendment clearly was designed so that at least all “free white men” could own (actually were REQUIRED to own) the commonly used military small arms of the time (as the supporting legislation, the militia act, requires such weapons to be owned by said person).
As the AR-15, AR-10 and M-14 are contemporary equivalents to the Charleville 1766 and Kentucky Long Rifle types specified as REQUIRED to be owned in the Militia Act, (you bought you own and could pick which one you wanted) they should be allowed for ownership, at least for all members of the militia, which includes ALL able bodied men 17-45 (the racial thing was removed, and the age lowered to 17 in subsequent amendments).
But the whole men only seems pretty damn sexist, so in the name of equality women should be allowed to own the same weapons as men.
No. Superseded by the Militia Act of 1908, which while composing the militia of "every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able; bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age," does not require universal weapons ownership.
Also, it does now include women, but only women who are members of the National Guard.
by Kowani » Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:18 pm
Novus America wrote:Kowani wrote:No. Superseded by the Militia Act of 1908, which while composing the militia of "every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able; bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age," does not require universal weapons ownership.
Also, it does now include women, but only women who are members of the National Guard.
I know the requirement is unfortunately no longer there, but still under the 1908 act all men 17-45 (and yes women in the Guard) are the militia, but just because the militia are no longer required to provide their own arms, that still does not change the fact the as per the constitution they have a right to such weapons, if they wish.
by The Chuck » Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:20 pm
Kowani wrote:Novus America wrote:
And then this is a good argument “assault weapons” bans are unconstitutional, as the Second Amendment clearly was designed so that at least all “free white men” could own (actually were REQUIRED to own) the commonly used military small arms of the time (as the supporting legislation, the militia act, requires such weapons to be owned by said person).
As the AR-15, AR-10 and M-14 are contemporary equivalents to the Charleville 1766 and Kentucky Long Rifle types specified as REQUIRED to be owned in the Militia Act, (you bought you own and could pick which one you wanted) they should be allowed for ownership, at least for all members of the militia, which includes ALL able bodied men 17-45 (the racial thing was removed, and the age lowered to 17 in subsequent amendments).
But the whole men only seems pretty damn sexist, so in the name of equality women should be allowed to own the same weapons as men.
No. Superseded by the Militia Act of 1908, which while composing the militia of "every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able; bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age," does not require universal weapons ownership.
Also, it does now include women, but only women who are members of the National Guard.
In-Character Advertisement Space:
The Chuck wholly endorses Wolf Armaments, Lauzanexport CDT, and
Silverport Dockyards Ltd.
by Kowani » Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:24 pm
The Chuck wrote:Kowani wrote:No. Superseded by the Militia Act of 1908, which while composing the militia of "every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able; bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age," does not require universal weapons ownership.
Also, it does now include women, but only women who are members of the National Guard.
Well... you've seen my rifle Kowani...
1st gen. immigrant and I'm armed up just like how the founding fathers intended...
I smell a good founding fathers copy pasta moment somewhere around here...
by Telconi » Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:29 pm
Kowani wrote:The Chuck wrote:
Well... you've seen my rifle Kowani...
1st gen. immigrant and I'm armed up just like how the founding fathers intended...
I smell a good founding fathers copy pasta moment somewhere around here...
...You're Korean.
The founding fathers were not keen on minorities having weapons.
While we can't know what they thought about Armed Koreans, due to the total lack of Korean immigrants in the late 1700's, the fact thaat the militia act of 1792 only included white men does not say they would've looked kindly upon it.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Dazchan, Eahland, Free Radio States, Google [Bot], Haganham, Himmelland, Ineva, Kostane, New Temecula, Soviet Haaregrad, Statesburg, The Vooperian Union, Tiami, Verkhoyanska
Advertisement