The 2nd Amendment

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I've never seen any form of gun in a minuet. Harpsichords are quite prevalent, however, and could be used as a weapon of one is strong enough.

Nice to know you have never made a typo.Sit on it..

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

British soldiers trained to standard could fire fifteen rounds in 3.75 minutes* -- that is equivalent to four rounds per minute!

The ball with pre-measured powder charge was prepared before hand and wrapped and/or tied in paper/cloth/or thin pieces of leather. The ball was ripped from the paper, the powder charge was poured down the barrel, the paper/cloth or thin piece of leather was dropped into the bore and the ball was dropped on top and rammed home with a ramrod (preferrably made of steel). Each soldier in the king's service was required to carry thirty-six such prepared cartridges. Certain unique and capable individuals, e.g., frontiersmen such as Daniel Boone and Simon Kenton, could actually reload a flintlock while at a full run.



*Galvin, John R. Gen. The Minute Man. The First Fight: Myths and Realities of the American Revolution (pp. 62-63).

I did find one source who said if conditions were right they could fire four rounds a min.The problem was black power was so bad it left residue that clogged the touch hole.To counter it the ball was undersized and over 60 yards they couldn't hit a man sized target.They were very unreliable and if it was wet they would make good clubs.Earlier guns had wooden ramrods then were tipped with brass,The last ones has steel.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Nice to know you have never made a typo.Sit on it..

What have you got against minuets? I'll admit, sometimes a nice rhapsody is nice, but minuets are often very nice as well.

[acp5762]

First of all you need to understand when the 2nd Amendment was written. At the time of it's inception into the United States Constitution the 2nd amendment applied to all citizens, because all citizens could be called upon to serve in the Millitary at anytime and citizens were expected to supply their own Firearms, forming a well organized Millitia. Of course times have changed but the right for a private citizen to posses and bear arms still stands even though they may not be a member of a well organized millitia. In the case of this school shooting the shooter violated the amendment by commiting murder. The intentional taking the life of another without justification.

[Yssup Rider]

while I'm not sure I agree -- or can even follow -- much of what you said, I will opine that a LOT of people around here are too concerned with what the founders might have meant without putting any of it into modern perspective. Kinda like Bible thumpers.

[Guest040616]

Something tells me that the Founding Fathers had no earthly idea of the potential killing capacity of an AK-47 or M16. Those weapons certainly have their place in combat. I suspect that if the Founding Fathers would have thought differently knowing that one day have a firearm could spit out that many rounds in a matter of seconds.

Don't get me wrong, I am a lifelong hunter but I don't drink the NRA's Kool Aid! As far as I am concerned, it is all about good ol' common sense!

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

What have you got against minuets? I'll admit, sometimes a nice rhapsody is nice, but minuets are often very nice as well.

You know less about music than you do about America, dick soup.

[acp5762]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

while I'm not sure I agree -- or can even follow -- much of what you said, I will opine that a LOT of people around here are too concerned with what the founders might have meant without putting any of it into modern perspective. Kinda like Bible thumpers.

If you're referring to my post. The reason why you may not agree or even understand it is because you maybe viewing the 2nd Amendment as it applies to modern society. Of course the Founding Fathers may not have been able to fathom the advancement of Firearms or the sick corrupt citizens that may obtain a high powered Rifle and commit mass murder as we've seen over the years. But even unfortunate incidences like SandyHook and Columbine aren't good arguements for total Gun Control. The 2nd Amendment is a clear and concise statement and is part of our constitution and heritage. Now to regulate the sales and ownership of certain types of firearms such as fully automatic rifles such as Assault Rifles like AK-47, M-16 and MP-5 which only have their place in the hands of Millitary and Law Enforcement personel. Since the 2nd Amendment doesn't specify that a citizen has the right to own or obtain Any type of firearm controlling fully automatic or even Semi Automatic Firearms with high Capacity Magazines is within the legal scope of the Government without compromising the 2nd Amendment.

[roadcourse]

Henry Ford summed it up pretty well: "Anyone that thinks government has their best interests in mind should speak with an American Indian."

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You know less about music than you do about America, dick soup.

That is SO Funny! If you only knew! LOL!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by acp5762

Since the 2nd Amendment doesn't specify that a citizen has the right to own or obtain Any type of firearm ...

Given the function of the amendments .. "to limit the power of the government" ... the interpretation of the amendment cannot be interpreted as a limitation on the citizen so it does not "specify" what the citizen may have in the way of a firearm and it ought not to have such a limitation. The limiation is on the government and that limitation is to prevent the government from restricting possession of firearms on citizens.

The SCOTUS has historically interpreted the amendments to take into consideration contemporary and current circumstances that might affect the literal application of the particular amendment being reviewed. An example is the protection of the 4th amendment that requires a "warrant" to search: The Court has crafted various exceptions to the warrant requirement in order to address "modern" (current) circumstances, e.g. "exigent" circumstances and "police protection" and the "reasonable suspicion" standard discussed in "Terry vs. Ohio" aka sometimes misnamed as the "Terry Stop"!

The problem with one and two is that those are fundamental amendments for which there is little, if any, judicial relief, to correct the application of exceptions if the mandates are ignored. The taking of private property that may be considered essential to one's freedom from an oppressive government and the muzzling of dissenting voices and censure of grievances against the government would include the judicial branch of the government, which is a part of the government being challenged.

Equally important it is not appropriate constitutional interpretation to "assume" that because something did not exist when the document was written it does not apply. Our national constitution was intended to last for centuries, and although the original authors could not anticipate an "M16" two centuries later I think it would do them a disservice to "assume" that they were totally ignorant of the reality that "things" would change in the way of technology, particularly considering that some of them were "thinkers" and "inventors" well ahead of their years. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin come to mind.

[essence]

Originally Posted by acp5762

If you're referring to my post. The reason why you may not agree or even understand it is because you maybe viewing the 2nd Amendment as it applies to modern society. Of course the Founding Fathers may not have been able to fathom the advancement of Firearms or the sick corrupt citizens that may obtain a high powered Rifle and commit mass murder as we've seen over the years. But even unfortunate incidences like SandyHook and Columbine aren't good arguements for total Gun Control. The 2nd Amendment is a clear and concise statement and is part of our constitution and heritage. Now to regulate the sales and ownership of certain types of firearms such as fully automatic rifles such as Assault Rifles like AK-47, M-16 and MP-5, which only have their place in the hands of Millitary and Law Enforcement personel, is common sense. The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify that a citizen has the right to own or obtain Any type of firearm controlling fully automatic or even Semi Automatic Firearms with high Capacity Magazines so it is within the legal scope of the Government to control such weapons without compromising the 2nd Amendment.

I think this is what you meant to say, but your grammar was a challenge.

Doers any sensible, common sense person disagree with this?

Apart from super moderators like 2Dogs, whose brain has clearly been addled by the hobbiests he needs to control.

quote:

I would think what is allowable to posses would be entirely dependent upon what the government would use against its own citizens; nothing more, nothing less.

Ridiculous statement.
__________________

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

I did find one source who said if conditions were right they could fire four rounds a min.The problem was black power was so bad it left residue that clogged the touch hole.To counter it the ball was undersized and over 60 yards they couldn't hit a man sized target.They were very unreliable and if it was wet they would make good clubs.Earlier guns had wooden ramrods then were tipped with brass,The last ones has steel.

A contemporary marksman and expert, British Major George Hangar, agrees:

“A soldier’s musket, if not exceedingly ill-bored (as many of them are), will strike the figure of a man at 80 yards; it may even at 100 yards, but a soldier must be very unfortunate who shall be wounded by a common musket at 150 yards, provided his antagonist aims at him; as to firing at a man at 200 yards with a common musket, you may just as well fire at the moon and have the same hopes of hitting your object. I do maintain and will prove, whenever called on, that no man was ever killed at 200 yards, by a common soldier’s musket, by the person who aimed at him.” Galvin, John R. Gen. The Minute Man. The First Fight: Myths and Realities of the American Revolution (p. 64)

That is why, at that time, the British army -- and other European armies -- relied so heavily on the bayonet, and Native Americans remained very dependent on tomahawks, knives and war clubs. See about the Fort William Henry Massacre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_o...Henry#Massacre

However, black powder weapons did improve. Recall General John Sedgwick's famous last words in 1864, "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance," just before he was killed by a Confederate sniper at 1,000 yards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sedgwick

. . . or the likes of Confederate sniper Cpt. Jack Hinson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Hinson

Hinson "had a local craftsman build him a special gun. 'The rifle was a marvel of beauty, a masterwork of the gunsmith’s art.' The .50 caliber weapon with a 41-inch barrel weighed a whopping 18 pounds but gave an expert sharpshooter like Hinson the ability to hit a target more than a half-mile away."

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2GOAqoAUu


See also Billy Dixon's 1,538 yards, or nine-tenths of a mile, shot at the Second Battle of Adobe Walls. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Dixon &
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...of_Adobe_Walls

Originally Posted by acp5762

In the case of this school shooting the shooter violated the amendment by commiting murder. The intentional taking the life of another without justification.

Not to mention Lanza acquired the guns via extra-legal means.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Can't read, can you?I'm NOT denying it.

But I'm also pointing out that you recognized yourself when I wrote about a "certain someone" on this board who changes the subject when an argument goes badly..

Kind of like you are doing now when you try to pretend I'm denying something about quoting Timpage.

@: http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...8&postcount=65

Originally Posted by ExNYer

And nothing your pretentious ass has posted has changed the position stated @: http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...6&postcount=76

[Yssup Rider]

You are seriously fucked up. You take issue with people quoting other people quoting other people.

Please just go away.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You are seriously fucked up. You take issue with people quoting other people quoting other people.

Please just go away.

You're the "seriously" fucked-up asshole playing with plastic playmates, Assup the jackass. BTW, what say you follow your own fuckin' advice, Assup the jackass!!! Be gone you stupid, moronic mutha fucka!!!