Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree81Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 8th, 2017, 03:41 PM   #71
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimgorn View Post
Absolutely...."ARMS" is a military term....ARMS" are not used to hunt deer....Read the definition of the terms as used in 1787...
Why not read it in light of the 1689 English Bill of Rights, since that is where the right originated?
Quote:
The Bill of Rights 1689 allowed Protestant citizens of England to "have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law" and restricted the ability of the English Crown to have a standing army or to interfere with Protestants' right to bear arms "when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law" and established that Parliament, not the Crown, could regulate the right to bear arms.[5][6]

Sir William Blackstone wrote in the 18th century that the right to have arms was auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation" subject to suitability and allowance by law.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_..._and_bear_arms
Thanks from Jimgorn
TreeDoc is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 03:52 PM   #72
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,252
i just looked at some footage of bump stocks in action on youtube.

i am astonished they were ever legal, and predict they will be banned in the very near future. or if not banned, the laws will be rewritten so they fall under the same regulations as fully automatic weapons.
hot dragon is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 03:54 PM   #73
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 18,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimgorn View Post
Absolutely...."ARMS" is a military term....ARMS" are not used to hunt deer....Read the definition of the terms as used in 1787...
Really? The militia units that took part in the fighting during the Revolutionary War and pretty much all our wars for the following 100 years after than did NOT use their own personal firearms, you know the very SAME firearms they used at home to hunt dear and other game for their table?
Were not those militia units for the most part REQUIRED to supply their own firearms?

Is THAT what you are saying???
Hollywood is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 04:11 PM   #74
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Posts: 6,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
Really? The militia units that took part in the fighting during the Revolutionary War and pretty much all our wars for the following 100 years after than did NOT use their own personal firearms, you know the very SAME firearms they used at home to hunt dear and other game for their table?
Were not those militia units for the most part REQUIRED to supply their own firearms?

Is THAT what you are saying???
Up to your favorite tactic of confusing the issue, I see.....I did not say that the weapons used by the State's military organizations did not require their soldiers to supply their own personal weapons, or that, they were not the same weapons used by their owners to hunt deer. turkey or bear... I said ""ARMS" is a military term...as in a weapon, that can be carried in one's arms, used for military purposes.... So YES....automatic weapons are considered arms...A 105 howitzer is not....
Thanks from Sabcat
Jimgorn is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 04:49 PM   #75
concerned citizen
 
titan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Adirondack Park, NY
Posts: 411
jg #74

It's true that the term "arms" is used in the military. Several English words are.
I'm not sure that qualifies it as a "military term", even if it's a term more common in the military.
Civilians, ie policemen use the term the same way:
we found the man unconscious in his car, and realized he was "armed".
titan is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 05:02 PM   #76
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Posts: 6,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by titan View Post
jg #74

It's true that the term "arms" is used in the military. Several English words are.
I'm not sure that qualifies it as a "military term", even if it's a term more common in the military.
Civilians, ie policemen use the term the same way:
we found the man unconscious in his car, and realized he was "armed".
I agree.....the term arms is used both ways today....But what is a common denominator in these debates about the Constitution is the left's failure (or deliberate ignorance) in applying terms as they meant at the time of the drafting of the Constitution.....

Another term they fail to understand is "militia"....A militia was that segment of the population that the State could call upon to defend itself from either a foreign threat or a rogue central Government....Generally those able bodied males enfranchised to vote...
Jimgorn is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 05:10 PM   #77
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 18,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimgorn View Post
Up to your favorite tactic of confusing the issue, I see.....I did not say that the weapons used by the State's military organizations did not require their soldiers to supply their own personal weapons, or that, they were not the same weapons used by their owners to hunt deer. turkey or bear... I said ""ARMS" is a military term...as in a weapon, that can be carried in one's arms, used for military purposes.... So YES....automatic weapons are considered arms...A 105 howitzer is not....
What are you talking about?
YOU said "arms" was strictly a "military term" and did NOT include firearms "used to hunt deer." Did you not?
Have to any doubt whatsoever that militia units in the 18th and 19th century were NOT primarily armed with their own personal firearms?
Would you care to refute or reasonably dispute my statement?

Indeed "arms" refers to non crew served weapons, those weapons CARRIED or BORNE (as in to bear arms) by the ordinary infantryman. In the case of the 18th and 19th century infantry that would include muskets, rifles, bayonets, swords, pikes and even crude hand grenades. Correct?

So, you ARE including fully automatic rifles, sub machine guns and pistols BECAUSE they "can be carried in one's arms, used for military purposes."
AGREED?

I was an infantryman in the Marine Corps in 1968. Guess what "arms" WE "carried in our arms for military purposes?" In addition to semi automatic and fully automatic rifles they included fragmentation hand grenades, various military grade explosives, M-79 grenade launchers, anti personal mines such as the Claymore and the M72 LAW rocket launcher. I was trained to use all of those "arms" as a Marine rifleman and i could indeed carry them and none were crew served.

So, according to your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment i should be allowed to own all of those weapons. I mean, what the fuck, if a fully automatic rifle is permitted by the 2nd Amendment why not?

Last edited by Hollywood; October 8th, 2017 at 05:20 PM. Reason: typo
Hollywood is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 05:31 PM   #78
concerned citizen
 
titan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Adirondack Park, NY
Posts: 411
Hw #77

I sense you're striking a glancing blow at a sharp point.
I'm not trying to refute you.
I'd like to help clarify.

Are you suggesting we should all be allowed to strut up & down Main Street with M-79's?

Or are you pointing out that that is the literal meaning of 2A, which may have some anachronistic content in our 3rd Millennium?
titan is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 05:38 PM   #79
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimgorn View Post
Up to your favorite tactic of confusing the issue, I see.....I did not say that the weapons used by the State's military organizations did not require their soldiers to supply their own personal weapons, or that, they were not the same weapons used by their owners to hunt deer. turkey or bear... I said ""ARMS" is a military term...as in a weapon, that can be carried in one's arms, used for military purposes.... So YES....automatic weapons are considered arms...A 105 howitzer is not....
Quote:
Originally Posted by titan View Post
jg #74

It's true that the term "arms" is used in the military. Several English words are.
I'm not sure that qualifies it as a "military term", even if it's a term more common in the military.
Civilians, ie policemen use the term the same way:
we found the man unconscious in his car, and realized he was "armed".
and we refer to certain nations as 'nuclear armed'.

i doubt anyone is actually carrying a nuclear weapon in their 'arms' though.

perhaps the way certain words are used changes over time.
hot dragon is offline  
Old October 8th, 2017, 05:51 PM   #80
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 18,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by titan View Post
Hw #77

I sense you're striking a glancing blow at a sharp point.
I'm not trying to refute you.
I'd like to help clarify.

Are you suggesting we should all be allowed to strut up & down Main Street with M-79's?

Or are you pointing out that that is the literal meaning of 2A, which may have some anachronistic content in our 3rd Millennium?
Post #77 was directed at Jimgorn.

Well why not? IF......note I said IF... a fully automatic rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment BECAUSE it is a non crew served infantry weapon then so is the M-79 grenade launcher.
Hollywood is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
bumpstock, gambit, good, idea, nra, work



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A good idea, but ... ericthered World History 2 April 15th, 2016 12:15 PM
Not a good idea? roastpork Housing Market 3 October 29th, 2014 01:30 AM
A good idea? roastpork Education 0 April 9th, 2014 11:56 AM
Anybody have any idea how this might work... Dude111 Science and Technology 6 January 31st, 2010 12:49 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.