Well, Duh, Of Course It Is
Sorry drew,
I thought we dealt with this issue a while back with Discussion of:
“Letters of Marque and Reprisal”.
1) If you can pick it up and carry it 2 miles by yourself, then it’s a gun.
If it’s too heavy to lift, too bulky to maneuver with, comes with wheels on,
or requires a tripod to use, then it’s classified as artillery and subject
to restrictions.This is your Point?
How could a Letter of Marque be Issued to the Owner of a Vessel Fitted with Cannon,
If private parties are not allowed ownership of such weapons.
Cannon are Crew Served and Not exactly Portable Yet Individuals did own them
and they Fall within the Definition of ARMS.Hey, I never said artillery would be illegal ... just not something you’d want everybody to have maybe.
But you have a good point. Why should we suffer from “reasonable” regulation? Incorporate the Second and there will be no more of that.
Problem is, there are quite a number of people who would not use a flamethrower responsibly. If such a thing can be done in the first place.
First of all, Regardless what the Court thinks about the 14th A., that amendment was intended to incorporate all the Constitution’s privileges and immunties, including all the ones listed in the first eight amendments. This is evidenced by the following.
John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., included the 2nd A. when he read the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes containing privileges and immunities that the 14th A. applied to the states. See the 2nd A. for yourself in the middle column of the following linked page in the Congressional Globe, a predecessor to the Congressional Record.
Again, as evidenced by the words of John Bingham, all constitutional privileges and immunities have been incorporated by the 14th A. regardless of the Court’s practice of selective incorporation.
And since we’re discussing the 2nd A., note that the 2nd A. as it appears in the Globe has only a single comma, unlike modern versions of that amendment. Indeed, somebody clued me in that the single comma in the 2nd A. in the Globe is how the 2nd A. was originally written. I find the “old fashioned” version of the 2nd A. easier to read.
Second Amendment as it appears in Congressional Globe:
Article II. 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.
“Modern” 2nd Amendment as constitutional lawyers have butchered it with more commas.
Article [II.] 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.
In fact, Wikipedia notes the 2nd A. discrepancies but, based on the Globe version, seems to have the explanations bass ackwards.
Posted by RepealThe16thAmendment
03/21/2009 at 12:42 AM
I clicked the link, and read the Wiki article. The header stated that the “neutrality of the article was in question”. How can one be neutral on the Constitutionally recognized rights of We The People? But it did seem extremely factual and well researched.
Question being, why is there a question of the neutrality of said article? It was very “matter of fact, here’s the history” IMHO.I too take exception to your classification of Arms. Why are you caving in part to those who would repress the constitution? Every gun control act thus far is unconstitutional. The 2nd Ammendment gave us the right to keep and bear arms, recognizing the fact that had some of our founding fathers not had a cannon or two, the rebellion would never have turned into a revolution and the founding of the greatest country on earth. Those that seek to undermine it do so with the intent to make us lackies of and party to a world government headed by tyrants and despots like B Hussein O Soetoro, the Arab imposter.
