Are knives arms?

[Bobob]

Thus:
George Washington would have, unquestionably, fully approved of every potential militiaman, and every frontier family, being in possession of an AR15 and a cartridge box full of loaded 30-rd magazines.
Tell us why you disagree.

If so, his approval would include strict controls. You make a statement that can't be supported.
The rule was for guns to be in the hands of militia fighting in that conflict, and you are stretching it.

 

[progressive hunter]

If so, his approval would include strict controls. You make a statement that can't be supported.
The rule was for guns to be in the hands of militia fighting in that conflict, and you are stretching it.

how about you back up your claim??

 

[Bobob]

how about you back up your claim??

Just common sense. There is no way that the founding fathers could have imagined the extent of the gun situation today.

 

[progressive hunter]

Just common sense. There is no way that the founding fathers could have imagined the extent of the gun situation today.

got a link to back up your opinion??

I think youre forgetting in their lifetime they had seen advancements equal to what we see today,,
they had multi barrel and rifled barrels that were worlds ahead of what existed 20 yrs before,,

so again are you going to back up your claims like you wanted others to do or are you going to just keep giving you uneducated opinions??

 

[Bobob]

got a link to back up your opinion??

I think youre forgetting in their lifetime they had seen advancements equal to what we see today,,
they had multi barrel and rifled barrels that were worlds ahead of what existed 20 yrs before,,

so again are you going to back up your claims like you wanted others to do or are you going to just keep giving you uneducated opinions??

Give it up, lamb chop. You cannot be that ignorant. Look what the hell is going on in our country today.

 

[progressive hunter]

Give it up, lamb chop. You cannot be that ignorant. Look what the hell is going on in our country today.

we arent talking about today dumbass,,,

you said the founders couldnt imagine something they were actually watching happen,,

everything form guns to artillery were advancing by leaps and bounds right in front of them,,

 

[Abatis]

Just common sense. There is no way that the founding fathers could have imagined the extent of the gun situation today.

Madison specifically discussed the armed citizenry and the ratio of armed citizens to "official" soldiers of the government's "standing army".

Madison said that each soldier would be "opposed" (his word) by 17 armed citizens.

Now, Madison's ratio has widened to about 30 armed citizens opposing each "soldier" (LOL) of today's active and reserve armed forces.

 

[Bobob]

we arent talking about today dumbass,,,

you said the founders couldnt imagine something they were actually watching happen,,

everything form guns to artillery were advancing by leaps and bounds right in front of them,,

You aren't talking about today, cupcake. I am. We know that the founding fathers were referring to their situation. What was being developed is a far cry from what we are discussing.

 

[Bobob]

Madison specifically discussed the armed citizenry and the ratio of armed citizens to "official" soldiers of the government's "standing army".

Madison said that each soldier would be "opposed" (his word) by 17 armed citizens.

Now, Madison's ratio has widened to about 30 armed citizens opposing each "soldier" (LOL) of today's active and reserve armed forces.

Armed citizens in their world at that time. Get real.

 

[progressive hunter]

You aren't talking about today, cupcake. I am. We know that the founding fathers were referring to their situation. What was being developed is a far cry from what we are discussing.

no we are not referring to the founders situation,, you are just making shit up and refuse to back it up with proof,,

now on the other hand we know what youre claiming is wrong because they wrote down exactly what they intended,,

and as I said before in every oath taken by soldiers and elected politicians it says,,
" from enemies both foreign or domestic"

 

[BlackSand]

Just common sense. There is no way that the founding fathers could have imagined the extent of the gun situation today.

.

They understood the nature of the government attempting to disarm you ... And started a war over it among other things.

.​

 

[Otis Mayfield]

Thus:
George Washington would have, unquestionably, fully approved of every potential militiaman, and every frontier family, being in possession of an AR15 and a cartridge box full of loaded 30-rd magazines.
Tell us why you disagree.

That's a tough one.

If George were here today, he'd see that we no longer had muskets.

If some maniac is going to shoot up a school with a musket, he'd shoot one child, reload over 30 seconds to a minute, and then shoot another kid.

My guess is that the kids would run off after one shot.

Compare that to AR15s with 30 round mags. You could shoot 30 kids without pause.

I would like to get Washington's opinion on all this.

I assume he'd say that an AR15 is too much firepower to put in the hands of idiots.

 

[Bobob]

no we are not referring to the founders situation,, you are just making shit up and refuse to back it up with proof,,

now on the other hand we know what youre claiming is wrong because they wrote down exactly what they intended,,

and as I said before in every oath taken by soldiers and elected politicians it says,,
" from enemies both foreign or domestic"

The bottom line is that I don't like to read that a 16yr old shot up his school with an AR15, or a 17 yr old marching into a violent protest, gun in hand. They should not be readily available, and should be regulated. I also do not believe that the founding fathers would support today's gun activity, which has evolved due to a lack of enforced regulation.

 

[BlackSand]

I would like to get Washington's opinion on all this.

.

He'd probably tell you that you should have beat that kid's ass a long time before he ever thought about shooting up a school.
Send that little fella's rear end out into the wilderness and we have a job for him that he isn't going to like.

.​

 

[progressive hunter]

The bottom line is that I don't like to read that a 16yr old shot up his school with an AR15, or a 17 yr old marching into a violent protest, gun in hand. They should not be readily available, and should be regulated. I also do not believe that the founding fathers would support today's gun activity, which has evolved due to a lack of enforced regulation.

I dont like to read about those things either,, but they have nothing to do with what the founders thought or intended and I am positive they wouldnt be for any gun control because of those things because they knew freedom and life has its risks,,

are you still whining about kyle rittenhouse?? he didnt march into a violent protest gun in hand,, he stepped up to protect his community when the government refused to do their job,,

 

[Bobob]

.

They understood the nature of the government attempting to disarm you ... And started a war over it among other things.

.​

They understood the nature of the war they were fighting. It was a war with another country over our Maritime rights. Nothing to do with our government disarming you. It was specific as to who could
carry weapons and for what purpose.
I own guns and do not want to lose that right, but there should be enforced regulations.

 

[progressive hunter]

They understood the nature of the war they were fighting. It was a war with another country over our Maritime rights. Nothing to do with our government disarming you. It was specific as to who could
carry weapons and for what purpose.
I own guns and do not want to lose that right, but there should be enforced regulations.

where is it specific as to who could carry weapons??

what I am reading is it says
THE PEOPLE",,

 

[BlackSand]

They understood the nature of the war they were fighting. It was a war with another country over our Maritime rights.

.

Sweetie ... I wasn't talking about your nonsense.

I was talking about when the British were on their way to Concord to confiscate guns and ammo ...
And ran into the Minutemen at the North Bridge outside of Lexington before figuring out we weren't playing games and retreating back to Boston.

.​

 

[Abatis]

Armed citizens in their world at that time. Get real.

Madison's numbers were the specifics that explain a principle that has no expiration.

The principle was, if the national forces ever become under the power of a tyrant, the largest national standing army that could possibly be maintained would face overwhelming and insurmountable armed citizen opposition.

Madison said:

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, . . .​

​

Why would you think that principle would have an (unwritten) expiration date?

That this explanation is in a Federalist Paper, #46 of 85 which were written to explain the powers that would be conferred if the Constitution were ratified, what makes you think a power would ever be surrendered by the people, to allow the government to extinguish this principle?

.

 

[Abatis]

They should not be readily available, and should be regulated. I also do not believe that the founding fathers would support today's gun activity, which has evolved due to a lack of enforced regulation.

Of all guns available to citizens right now, an AR-15 and its standard capacity (30 round) magazine, have the greatest level of constitutional protection under the 2nd Amendment.

There are three 'prongs' of the Supreme Court's protection criteria, used to decide if the citizen possession and use of a gun is beyond the regulatory powers of government.

The Court asks the following questions:

Is the gun of a type that is part of the ordinary military equipment​

and/or​

Is the gun of a type that could be used advantageously in the common defense and/or​

Is the gun of a type in common use by the citizens at the time (which means, at the current time and/or at the time of the Court's evaluation).​

Any YES, if a gun meets any of those criteria, the power being claimed by government to restrict its possession and use by individual citizens must be repelled (or invalidated if the law is already in force).

In Heller, the Court only used the "in common use" test to invalidate the DC statutes on handguns . . . When an "assault weapon" ban comes before them, ALL criteria will be employed to invalidate that law because "assault weapons" meet ALL the criteria..

.