Thanks for those links. So it's not just Fox news makes up their facts then.
_________________________ I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
Seems the 2nd amendment in some ways mimics the UK laws that every able bodied man over the age of 7 and under the age of 60 be required to own a long bow and practice with it regularly (under the observance of the local clergy). Since at that time any able bodied man could be called up in defense of the realm.
Similarly, the early US states foresaw the need to be able to call up every able bodied man to serve in the defense of the state (hence the militia inclusion). This militia was not part of the paid military, those being effectively the national guard of today. The militia was an irregular force of civilians, who needed to supply their own weapons, but (being well regulated) those weapons needed to be of the same type as the regular state military, so that ammunition supplies could be drawn from a common supply. Hence everybody carried the cutting edge weapon of the day. Of course going by this theory one could charge that the 2nd amendment is a requirement for everyone to be able to stand in the defense of the state with their own rifle and maybe handgun, using the same caliber ammunition as the state reserve - since the state needs to be able to call up a militia for its defense.
Unlike the US, the British militia requirement for owning and practicing with a long bow (the cutting edge military weapon at the time the law was invested), was probably revoked in 1960 and definitely revoked in 1986. And of course much easier to revoke as it was a law and not an enshrined right.
In a similar way it could be argued that the 2nd amendment requiring men to own a firearm for the event of them being called up to defend the state is an anachronism, as warfare has progressed past a few rows of men standing at opposite ends of a field shooting in the general direction of "each other". We now have high tech aviation and artillery that requires a lot of specialized training and practice in addition to other hardware that to be honest makes a civilian militia more of a liability than a boon. But then it's more difficult to revoke a right than it is to revoke a law.
_________________________ I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
Similarly, the early US states foresaw the need to be able to call up every able bodied man to serve in the defense of the state (hence the militia inclusion). This militia was not part of the paid military, those being effectively the national guard of today.
The one part many people seem to exclude is the fact that it was referencing a "well-regulated militia " not every citizen. Most second amendment proponents leave out those crucial words, well regulated militia.
In those days the militia was a regular citizen. They were farmers and tradesmen in times of peace, but would be drafted during times of conflict, and would be expected to provide their own weapons.
Standing military was trained, and paid for their service, they would be provided weapons and uniforms, typically the cost of which would be deducted from their pay.
There is a subtle difference between regulated militia and regular military. Our modern reserves while part time are regular trained fighting men. A militia would be your friends and neighbors taking up arms to protect their homes - think the various nation resistance fighters during WWII. Though I do think that the difference between a militia and regular military is expanding as time goes by, and nations/states rightly rely less on the militia concept because of this.
_________________________ I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
#589771 - 02/04/1303:57 PMRe: There are good ideas...
[Re: Llewelyn]
yoyo52
Nothing comes of nothing.
Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 28794
Loc: PA, USA
Originally Posted By: Llewelyn
Seems the 2nd amendment in some ways mimics the UK laws that every able bodied man over the age of 7 and under the age of 60 be required to own a long bow and practice with it regularly (under the observance of the local clergy). Since at that time any able bodied man could be called up in defense of the realm.
Similarly, the early US states foresaw the need to be able to call up every able bodied man to serve in the defense of the state (hence the militia inclusion). This militia was not part of the paid military, those being effectively the national guard of today. The militia was an irregular force of civilians, who needed to supply their own weapons, but (being well regulated) those weapons needed to be of the same type as the regular state military, so that ammunition supplies could be drawn from a common supply. Hence everybody carried the cutting edge weapon of the day. Of course going by this theory one could charge that the 2nd amendment is a requirement for everyone to be able to stand in the defense of the state with their own rifle and maybe handgun, using the same caliber ammunition as the state reserve - since the state needs to be able to call up a militia for its defense.
Unlike the US, the British militia requirement for owning and practicing with a long bow (the cutting edge military weapon at the time the law was invested), was probably revoked in 1960 and definitely revoked in 1986. And of course much easier to revoke as it was a law and not an enshrined right.
In a similar way it could be argued that the 2nd amendment requiring men to own a firearm for the event of them being called up to defend the state is an anachronism, as warfare has progressed past a few rows of men standing at opposite ends of a field shooting in the general direction of "each other". We now have high tech aviation and artillery that requires a lot of specialized training and practice in addition to other hardware that to be honest makes a civilian militia more of a liability than a boon. But then it's more difficult to revoke a right than it is to revoke a law.
The medieval practices that you refer to are probably very apropos. If so, then the initial phrase concerning the "well regulated militia," is even more important, since those well-fletched yeomen of yore were all organized by and under the authority of their feudal lords, who in turn owed service to their feudal overlords from whom they held property in fief.
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
#589772 - 02/04/1305:22 PMRe: There are good ideas...
[Re: yoyo52]
MacBozo
Nut Dood
Registered: 04/20/02
Posts: 16605
Loc: Pinellas Park, Florida
Originally Posted By: yoyo52
The medieval practices that you refer to are probably very apropos. If so, then the initial phrase concerning the "well regulated militia," is even more important, since those well-fletched yeomen of yore were all organized by and under the authority of their feudal lords, who in turn owed service to their feudal overlords from whom they held property in fief.
Keep in mind that when the 2nd amendment was written and adopted, we had no standing army. It was essential to the new nation's defense to have an armed and trained citizenry. The tyrannical government phrase referred to external governments that would like to invade and conquer the new found US.
#589778 - 02/04/1306:41 PMRe: There are good ideas...
[Re: Jim_]
carp
Dino's are Babe magnets
Registered: 04/19/02
Posts: 27013
Loc: Hawaii
Originally Posted By: Jim_
Originally Posted By: carp
If its either semi or full auto I still consider it a machine gun. The only difference is how you press the trigger.
No a semi won't do this;
machinegun noun an automatic gun that fires bullets in rapid succession for as long as the trigger is pressed.
My understanding from WiKI;
Auto fire - you press the trigger to fire and press again to stop. semi auto - you press the trigger and you have to hold the trigger to continue to fire.
Simply - with full auto you fire and then your (hand) can be doing something else like re-loading and not be on the trigger like a semi.
Hence to me they are both machine guns - just trigger management is different.
Auto fire - you press the trigger to fire and press again to stop.
No, you press the trigger to fire and when you release it stops firing. I don't know of any firearm that requires you to press the trigger again to stop firing. That would be insane, what if you dropped the weapon while it was firing? It would continue to fire.
Quote:
semi auto - you press the trigger and you have to hold the trigger to continue to fire.
That's not the way a semi works, from wiki;
A semi-automatic, or self-loading, firearm is a weapon that performs all steps necessary to prepare the weapon to fire again after firing—assuming cartridges remain in the weapon's feed device or magazine. Typically, this includes extracting and ejecting the spent cartridge case from the weapon's firing chamber, re-cocking the firing mechanism, and loading a new cartridge into the firing chamber. Although automatic weapons and selective fire firearms do the same tasks, semi-automatic firearms do not automatically fire an additional round until the trigger is released and re-pressed by the person firing the weapon.
Unlike semi-automatic firearms, which require one trigger pull per round fired, a machine gun is designed to fire as long as the trigger is held down.
Previous Topic
Index
