So we have the unlimited right to own and bear smooth-bore muskets?
But even then it seems a bit of a stitch since those who argued against any standing army at the time still wanted to have Congress to be able to raise militias in order to put down domestic rebellions. They simply didn’t want to pay for it, and figured having the militias pay for their own muskets and gear.
So their was a principle invoked to be sure… the principle of being a skinflint.
Ain’t that the sad truth
I think it was the Sherman tank that the Germans nicknamed the “Ronson”, because it lit the first time every time.
How quaint. A brain surgeon should know what a bullet will do to a brain. I can’t even explain the many ways this man has proved to be one big colossal disappointment.
Yes if that happens to be your militia’s weapon of choice to deter tyrannical or authoritarian government that was stepping on your individual liberties.
The militias are the state government militias. If your “arms” aren’t registered to be used in the state government militia, they’re not protected by the 2nd amendment.
It’s the 4th amendment that protects your gun collection just like it protects your baseball card collection, your butterfly collection and your shoe collection.
Wrong. The GOP and NRA positions are very, very clear. No limitations on arms, at anytime, to anyone, for any reason.
The GOTP position is that if someone feels they need a tank and rocket launcher to protect themselves against the guvment, then duck dynasty, how dare you Ben Carson take their rights away!!! Frankly you’re lucky that a redneck doesn’t pre-emptively SYG and kills you at first sight, to make sure that kind of commie-pinko-maxist talk about taking away their rights to tanks and rocket launchers doesn’t go anywhere!!! I mean, we’re trying to protect our children!
The argument that the Right distorts was that state governments should have arms and militia to defend against a federal standing army. That argument was settled in 1865.
Perhaps personal missile launchers would keep Republicans out of peoples bedrooms.
Two questions for this ass hat…
#1. Have your read the 2nd Amendment?
#2. Who. specifically, and how (also specifically) is taking away those (imagined) rights?
Well legally it was settled long before then. But it was settled in more basic terms on the ground in 1865. Seems these cretins on the looney-right (Bundy anyone?) still haven’t let that sink in.
You do realize that is a completely unsupported argument from either a legal or practical perspective, yes?
that’s basically the argument, with the very important exception that the counterbalance to invasion by the federal army was the well-organized armories and militia of the state government, not looney individuals or nutjob militias
“If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."
Ben just lost his TP street cred!
Little Feat Rocket in My Pocket https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGYB3QhfrRE
All those who would claim that the 2nd Amendment permits them to have rocket launchers (or assault rifles of any kind) in their bedrooms forget that particular phrase of the Amendment “A well-regulated militia…”
They chop off the first half of the amendment and then claim that any restriction infringes upon their right to bear arms. They need to go back and study the history and [original] debates surrounding the Second Amendment.
Furthermore, in the 1780’s, a single-shot rifle was pretty much the limit on deadly weapons. Muskets and pistols were about as accurate as pea-shooters. Given that the 2nd Amendment, as written, is supposed to allow everything from fly-swatters to RPGs, it’s probably time to revisit it, constitutionally. It’s technologically outdated. Especially when one likes to ignore that part about a militia.
Yeah sure Ben, that was really compelling and heartfelt. I can feel change a-coming. Another token, tap dancing sellout, shucking and jiving for whitey, while the rest of us in the real America burn.