BB - renenactment


I truly appreciate your post. You have made me think more deeply into the meaning of the 2nd. Special thanks for pointing out the Militia Acts. They sharpened the 2nd’s meaning to me. So, …

You wrote:

“… do you really think that the 2nd Amendment was meant to provide protection from the government? Are you basing that on the “security of a free State” phrase in 2A? Because I’m not sure it means what you think it means.”

One of the Founders was against the Bill of Rights for just this reason. Once you define some rights, you leave others out. This defines rights by inclusion, rather than by exclusion, which is basically our discussion now. Madison and Henry were against a Bill of Rights. I think Madison came around only as a compromise to get his Constitution passed.

You are making the inclusive argument, which is “if the right is not defined IN the constitution it doesn’t exist”. This is also the argument of the pro-abortion people. I had a very specific argument about the right to life. He told me that if I couldn’t show it to him it didn’t exist. You are making the same argument.

No. It would be ironic if the state gave its citizens the explicit right to rebel against it. Never in the history of mankind has that ever happened. I agree that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t say that, directly. But in a back hand way it gave all citizens the right to privately own arms and not just any arms, military arms. By using the language “militia” and “arms” it clearly signaled that military grade weapons were to be obtained. And the amendment didn’t say “only” or “reserved to” or some other restrictive language to restrict the USE of these private weapons.

What I think the amendment means and what the authorities think it means don’t have to be the same. In this case I mean USES, not ownership. How are they going to restrict rebellion?

When I make a contract with another, our reasoning does not have to explicitly coincide. I just have to come together enough to get the deal done. I don’t have to delve into the seller’s mind and understanding. I just have to make the  seller happy enough to sell. So, my reasoning is none of the seller’s business. As an example, I’ve bought real estate with the seller thinking I’m going to keep it, but I already have a buyer. If I tell that to the seller, they will wonder if they sold too low and cancel the deal. I actually had that happen. It’s none of their business. Same with the government.

As I read the 2nd and the Militia Acts, I see that they meant ownership, not use. That’s our area of disconnect. You are trying to define my use, when nowhere in the amendment is there a restriction on my use. You are trying to get me to believe that the amendment has a meaning that it doesn’t have.

OK, so let’s use your argument. It does restrict use to a militia. Fine. I still get to own it. I promise to not use my military grade rifle in rebellion against the US and the government agrees to enforce the immigration laws. Fair enough?

You wrote,

“What about the idea that the militias are to be used BY the government (as G. Washington did in the Whiskey Rebellion)?

In response to the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington put these federal powers to use (including the Militia Acts of 1792) and suppressed the rebellion with a militia force of nearly 13,000 men.”

I did notice that the Militia Act of 1792 made a distinction between a musket and a rifle. A musket is a military weapon. It has no rifling in the bore, uses a ball, is inaccurate and is an inexpensive weapon designed to be used in mass fire infantry formations. You fire at your massed enemy and hope to hit something. The rifle is an accurate weapon. It uses a pointed,  oblong projectile. It can also be used for hunting.

This distinction means that Congress authorized the private individual to own distinctly military weapons, in addition to their hunting weapons. This puts the lie to Cuomo’s remark about not needing a 10 cartridge magazine if you’re going deer hunting. The amendment may not say anything about rebellion, but it is clearly about owning military arms and not about hunting.

If the standard military weapon of 1792 was a musket, then the current  standard military weapon is a semi-automatic rifle with a 20 or 30 round magazine. Muskets in 1792 had absolutely no other purpose other than to kill humans. It was useless for hunting.

If you combine the 2nd with the Militia Acts, then the 2nd is about the right of private individuals to own military grade weapons. Today that means a semi-automatic assault rifle with large magazines. The Militia Acts go further into interpreting the 2nd. Thanks for having me read the Militia Acts.

Maybe my best argument is that I am arguing for use of the amendment. So, I have to signal to my supporters that the amendment can be used to support the military reasoning behind the amendment and not to give into to the nonsense about deer hunting. Militaries want rapid fire weapons. Semi-automatic with large magazine clips are preferred.

I am not going to let any government disarm me. It doesn’t matter what sweet words they or their proxies say to me. It doesn’t matter what promises they make and how responsible they will promise to be or how much they will honor and protect my person, property and rights. I’m not listening. Every year regardless of political persuasion, the government lies to me more and more. And I’m supposed to believe them about a fundamental right that I should NEVER give up? RightsPoliticsThe Second AmendmentPoliticsDonJ, I truly appreciate your post. You have made me think more deeply into the meaning of the 2nd. Special thanks for pointing out the Militia Acts. They sharpened the 2nd’s meaning to me. So, … You wrote: “... do you really think that the 2nd Amendment was meant to provide protection...Countering the Myths of Economics and Politics