2nd amendment musings.

[sheltiedave]

Originally Posted by whell

Oh, I think we can read just fine. We can also think.

Your argument pre-supposes that, in the early days of our country, someone who never used a firearm for their own purposes would simply show up and be prepared to use a firearm in armed conflict. You think Madison believed that militia folks would just show up when called and magically know how to use a gun? Since militia members were expected to bring their own firearms when called, do you think that they were expected to never use them unless the militia was activated? That's BS. They were expected to be proficient in the use of firearms, and were not provided with any formal training on how to use them, so learning how to use them was done as part of their day to day existence.

The Militia Act of 1792 was really the first attempt to "well - regulate" the militia. It codified the traditional view of the militia as consisting of all able- bodied citizens. It also required each militiaman to supply his own arms, and the law didn't provide any funding. So, I'm not sure how "well - regulated" the militias were as a practical matter.

It may be helpful for you to read a few serious scholastic books about the Revolutionary War, paying particular attention to the formation of the Army Quartermasters Corps, the Continental Marines, and the purchases the Continental Congress/Army made with France. You would not be advancing this alternative history re firearms.

[whell]

Originally Posted by sheltiedave

It may be helpful for you to read a few serious scholastic books about the Revolutionary War, paying particular attention to the formation of the Army Quartermasters Corps, the Continental Marines, and the purchases the Continental Congress/Army made with France. You would not be advancing this alternative history re firearms.

What I'm not doing is advancing YOUR alternative history of firearms. Point out anything that I wrote above that is incorrect.

[Oerets]

Think the debate on the 2nd has more to do with the selling of guns then fighting the government?

The arms industry ran overtime last year in the hopes of a bonanza after the election. Now are seriously over stocked!


Barney

[Oerets]

Really think a armed citizenry with even semi auto military 556's could last long against a government intent on complete subjugation? One Mark 82 from 10 thousand feet would take care of a house full of armed patriots. This is the smallest air drop in the arsenal but very effective.

Barney

[bobabode]

Screw it, I'm gonna get me a Henry 45-70 with the octagon barrel.
No messing around with this California hippie.

https://www.henryusa.com/rifles/45-70-lever-action/

[Oerets]

Just what exactly does the late 1700's have to do with this century and it's problems? A time so different in so many ways from then to now. Does one really think a person from that time would when confronted with our problems have the same solutions now as then?

It is our time and our problems to solve or not!



Barney

[donquixote99]

A military musket of the late 1700's was not a shotgun,and not a rifle. If anyone actually expected militia members to show up bringing muskets that they owned, and to know without training how to employ them using the military tactics of the time, such person was bound to be disappointed. And of course when tested in the war of 1812, the performance of the militia was very disappointing. So the wisdom of the 1700's wasn't even wise in the 1700s, and certainly can't be relied-on for guidance now.

[JJIII]

That doesn't answer the question.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by JJIII

That doesn't answer the question.

Me?
I did the best I could with a hypothetical, they did the best they could for a cause they passionately believed by whatever means necessary, "arms" notwithstanding.
Regardless, how does the intent of the 2nd apply today without advocating armed insurrection?

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

Me?
I did the best I could with a hypothetical, they did the best they could for a cause they passionately believed by whatever means necessary, "arms" notwithstanding.
Regardless, how does the intent of the 2nd apply today without advocating armed insurrection?

Nope, Bob's post.

Armed insurrection is exactly what a population needs against a tyrannical government.

Notice that I did not say we need to rise up at the moment.