The real issue is that the Bill of Rights is in the federal Constitution; states have their own separate constitutions. It wasn't until much later that the Supreme Court began applying the bill of rights to the states. Of course that wasn't a bad idea, but you need to realize this to correctly understand the context that the Bill of Rights was written in. And that's why today we have this controversy over what exactly constitutes "arms". If any of you have any issues accepting this, consider that the First Amendment begins "Congress shall pass no law..." That means specifically the US Congress, not referring to the US states.
Uh-huh. Well, the Brits, one of the best equipped armies in the world failed to achieve a victory against the Irish who were rag tag equipped. Early in the 20th Century they won the Republic, and in the 90’s brought the Brits to the negotiating table, winning not only parity in civil rights and in power sharing, but the right to a democratic vote to leave the U.K. and join the Irish Republic; something now discussed openly and frequently in the context of the BREXIT discussions; a vote could happen as soon as May according to my Sinn Fein sources. BTW, the IRA never had huge numbers of arms, but had the support of a large portion (40%+) of the population in the North. And, despite reports if the IRA (the Provisional Ira) decommissioning their weapons caches, some of which they did, dissenters from the RIRA (Real Ira) and the continuity pilfered many from the PIRA when they split and have still have weapons caches should the conflict renew... something many suspect could happen depending on whether the BREXIT option the Brits decide upon creates a hard border between the North and the Republic. The insurgents in Ireland were few and not as well equipped as the Civilians in the US. Considering gun registration/turn in programs in the NE met with somewhere between 10 to less than 15 % compliance despite potential for felony charges, projecting that to the entire US, would place a lot of weapons in the hand of any resistance movement, a movement that would be covert among the population and supported by large portion of sympathizers. Do, I think such would come to pass? No. But, the threat is enough to check politicians from any delusions... as the FF intended.
The second amendment was based on what the founders saw as a natural right of self defense. The concept of arms in the second amendment was about protecting weapons that normally citizens would be able to keep and bear and are useful for self defense. Weapons designed to attack areas (mortars, bombs, tanks, heavy machine guns, napalm, nukes and artillery) are not useful self defense weapons nor weapons ordinary citizens will keep or could bear. Anything Civilian police are issued for self defense clearly qualify as protected arms, The individual standard issued personal weapon of a soldier qualifies too
What arms does the constitution prohibit the people of the several sovereign states from keeping and bearing?
Repeating Wheellock and then Flintlock rifles and pistols were well known and in military use long before the American Revolutionary War. Capacities of up to 30 rounds were available. In fact the Continental Congress placed an order for repeating rifles in 1777, but withdrew the order when they learned of the price. Here is a handful, there are others: Kalthoff repeater, pre-1659, used in battle that year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater Lorenzoni, 1660 https://www.wideopenspaces.com/super-cool-lorenzoni-repeating-flintlock-pistol-video/ Cookson repeater, 1690 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cookson_repeater Puckle Gun, 1718 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun Belton flintlock, pre-1777 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock Firearms technology and the original meaning of the Second Amendment https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...the-original-meaning-of-the-second-amendment/ The point is that Congress knew of these repeating firearms, was fully aware of ongoing advances in firearms and tried to provide the best and the latest. They ran into problems of paying for them. The notion that the Second Amendment pertains only to single shot flintlock muskets and rifles and pistols is utter nonsense. If firearms are necessary to the security of a free state, then it is the ownership by the people of firearms of current, common utility to a military force that are protected. Otherwise the Second Amendment was meaningless soon after it was written, which the Founders certainly did not intend for any part of the Constitution.
It's not specific on purpose and for the sake of the entire constitution best to give arms a liberal definition.
In the U.S. the GCA's have a two edged sword which will cut against them either way, they dislike the military and law enforcement, while wishing to pass laws that will disarm the law abiding, and eventually LEO's, while expecting those same law enforcement people, they hate, to go out and disarm the law abiding and if that fails, they believe the military will carry out their unconstitutional orders. Not happening.
Yeah... lots wishful thinking only a magic wand can make happen. I find it humorous the duplicitous logic that is used. On one hand they want people to be disarmed and submit to being protected by a special group category of people (LE or military) but on the other the LE and the Military are criticized, and blamed for violence when they enforce the law. The real logic is the same as it’s been through history; they, the enlightened ones, want to be holding the guns after the rest of the peons have been disarmed; virtually all their solutions ultimately involve selectivity in observing civil rights of citizens.
So you also think that freedom of speech only applies to using media that were in use when the 1st amendment was signed (aka hand-powered printing presses with hand-set type). Or that freedom of religion only applies to religions that existed when the 1st amendment was signed?
It is an accurate comparison to be making with regard to such a general statement that was issued on the part of yourself with regard to the second amendment. If one amendment applies only to antiquated standards and can be dismissed the moment technological developments move forward, then the same standard of time limits must apply equally for all amendments.
Its the exact same argument. When the Constitution was written, the press consisted of hand-powered printing presses with hand set letters. To say that technology should not advance with the amendments (your basic argument) is really silly when you start to look at other amendments.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html Your opinion doesn't matter.
My bold type. AR-15 - the arms of the modern soldier and therefore the arms of today's civilians like me.