Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you are an originalist in constitutional interpretation, you have to show where citizens have the right to such military weapons. You can't and you don't. Do you know what strict construction means?
I suggest you go back to the OPThey were privately owned by the carrier of the weapon, the government did not have any say as to what they were to do with them.
Remembering that your cited document was an opinion, not having been tested in any court...on that basis I think that you are right, but, if the opinion in the document was held to be true then the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess firearms for private use.
It doesn't put controls on them, as you say, but neither does it grant any rights.
Again, I'm just referring to your document, not passing a personal opinion.
Summary of Emerson
Date: 10/19/2001
UNITED STATES v. EMERSON
U.S. Court of Appeals for 5th Circuit
Legislative drafters did sometimes use literal language to define specific legal responsibilities for use of weapons under the militia acts. But they employed "bear arms" only occasionally in a literal sense, and the linked words were never used to describe hunting or other non-military use of weapons...
I suggest you go back to the OPRemembering that your cited document was an opinion, not having been tested in any court...on that basis I think that you are right, but, if the opinion in the document was held to be true then the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess firearms for private use.
It doesn't put controls on them, as you say, but neither does it grant any rights.
Again, I'm just referring to your document, not passing a personal opinion.
Summary of Emerson
Date: 10/19/2001
UNITED STATES v. EMERSON
U.S. Court of Appeals for 5th Circuit
I have...and it still says
Legislative drafters did sometimes use literal language to define specific legal responsibilities for use of weapons under the militia acts. But they employed "bear arms" only occasionally in a literal sense, and the linked words were never used to describe hunting or other non-military use of weapons...
I suggest you go back to the OP
Summary of Emerson
Date: 10/19/2001
UNITED STATES v. EMERSON
U.S. Court of Appeals for 5th Circuit
I have...and it still says
Legislative drafters did sometimes use literal language to define specific legal responsibilities for use of weapons under the militia acts. But they employed "bear arms" only occasionally in a literal sense, and the linked words were never used to describe hunting or other non-military use of weapons...
What is it that you refuse to comprehend?
The court noted:
"Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does
protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may
never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific
exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and
not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually
keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this
country."
Summary of U.S. v. Emerson
Historically understood, would be to keep and bear arms to bear arms being a military term.
I have...and it still says
What is it that you refuse to comprehend?
The court noted:
"Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does
protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may
never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific
exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and
not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually
keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this
country."
Summary of U.S. v. Emerson
Historically understood, would be to keep and bear arms to bear arms being a military term.
I don't refuse to comprehend anything.
I am reading the document that you linked to, and according to it 'to keep and bear arms' is a military term, yes.
That's right, and the court finding is indisputable, but nothing to do with the original premise of this thread.What is it that you refuse to comprehend?
The court noted:
"Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does
protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may
never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific
exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and
not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually
keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this
country."
Summary of U.S. v. Emerson
Historically understood, would be to keep and bear arms to bear arms being a military term.
I don't refuse to comprehend anything.
I am reading the document that you linked to, and according to it 'to keep and bear arms' is a military term, yes.
I also linked the finding or summary of the court. in that last post.
That's right, and the court finding is indisputable, but nothing to do with the original premise of this thread.I don't refuse to comprehend anything.
I am reading the document that you linked to, and according to it 'to keep and bear arms' is a military term, yes.
I also linked the finding or summary of the court. in that last post.
Once again, I am merely pointing out that the conclusion of the document that you started this whole thread on weakens, rather than supports your original statement.
If you have the money you can own a tank
Private citizens with tanks
While tanks are intended strictly for military use, it has become somewhat of a status symbol for a private citizen to own their own tank. Below is a list of private citizens known to own a tank.
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Chingy
Larry the Cable Guy's custom tank which he dubbed the "Hillbilly Death Dealer"
Snoop Dog
Bruce Valance
Larry the Cable Guy
Mr T
Fank the Tank
P. S. By the way Jake - I am a she not a he.
Americans "historically" have not understood the 2nd in terms of possessing modern military weapons; no evidences support such a concept by a large majority of American citizens in modern times. The formation of the national guards, the reserves, etc., only further confuses. SCOTUS clearly opines that Americans can carry and bear arm but imparts no concept of military weapons platforms.
I am correct in assuming your philosophical premise is that an armed citizenry is necessary to avoid government suppression of civil liberties, thus citizens must be on a level playing field with the military? If that is so, I will merely point out that is not possible and will not happen. James Madison said it best that civic virtue is the best guarantor of American civil liberties.
Americans "historically" have not understood the 2nd in terms of possessing modern military weapons
The formation of the national guards, the reserves, etc., only further confuses. SCOTUS clearly opines that Americans can carry and bear arm but imparts no concept of military weapons platforms.
I am correct in assuming your philosophical premise is that an armed citizenry is necessary to avoid government suppression of civil liberties, thus citizens must be on a level playing field with the military?
Would you bet your life on uncertain times?If that is so, I will merely point out that is not possible and will not happen.
They are not the militia, because they do not own those weapons they carry.
If you have the money you can own a tank
Private citizens with tanks
While tanks are intended strictly for military use, it has become somewhat of a status symbol for a private citizen to own their own tank. Below is a list of private citizens known to own a tank.
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Chingy
Larry the Cable Guy's custom tank which he dubbed the "Hillbilly Death Dealer"
Snoop Dog
Bruce Valance
Larry the Cable Guy
Mr T
Fank the Tank
P. S. By the way Jake - I am a she not a he.
Sorry, ma'am, I apologize for that. Tell me, peach, are those tanks fully functional as combat platforms as they are now constituted. I suspect not. Does the law permit them to be retrofitted.
I you can make such an argument with solid support I am going to have to some digging.
Great post, thanks.
You have no evidence to support your philosophy, bigreb, and you of all people, along with Gautama and gstarz, must never presume you speak for anything more than a minuscule minority of reactionary militia wacks. You don't have the evidence, only your philosophy. Thanks for the admission.
If you have the money you can own a tank
Private citizens with tanks
While tanks are intended strictly for military use, it has become somewhat of a status symbol for a private citizen to own their own tank. Below is a list of private citizens known to own a tank.
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Chingy
Larry the Cable Guy's custom tank which he dubbed the "Hillbilly Death Dealer"
Snoop Dog
Bruce Valance
Larry the Cable Guy
Mr T
Fank the Tank
P. S. By the way Jake - I am a she not a he.
Sorry, ma'am, I apologize for that. Tell me, peach, are those tanks fully functional as combat platforms as they are now constituted. I suspect not. Does the law permit them to be retrofitted.
I you can make such an argument with solid support I am going to have to some digging.
Great post, thanks.
I accept your apology. No the Tanks have the breech removed, but a good machinist can make one, it's the ammunition that would be hard to get.
The point is that if your citizens can be armed and our government ever became a dictatorship or a despot came into power we have the right to overthrow that kind of government. I also think that our military would be one the side of the citizens if it ever happened.
This is what the 2nd amendment is about.
