Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ishmael
As I read the second amendment, it doesn't specifiy or define what constitutes "arms". so we must leave it open to interpretation.
A strict constructionist view of the amendment, to my mind, would mean only the arms available to the framers would be available now. That is, flintlock rifles & muskets and muzzle-loading cannon using black powder.
|
But then the 1st Amendment would only apply to town criers and news outlets that use ye olde printing block presses (hey, I could live with that.......I wouldn't have to listen to news rants about gaudy celebrities anymore!!).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ishmael
An expansive or judicially activist view would mean any US citizen should be able to buy, own & possess any weapon available in any military inventory, including artillery, tanks and weapons of mass destruction. Methinks that the NRA's interpretation is closer to the latter than the former.
|
It's not an activist stance to say that the citizens should be able to purchase small-arms equivalent to the military. As the 2nd amendment states that the militia (the militia being the law-abiding citizens of the U.S.) and the people (citizens of the U.S.) have the right to keep and bear arms.
With the muzzleloading musket being the military firearm of the age, the militia had the right to keep arms equal to that of the military.
Militiamen were required to provide their own arms unless provided for by the local populace and they were often calibered between the ranges of .50 to .75.
Each militiaman was expected to provide his own firelock, cartridge box, one pound of powder, and four pounds of ball. Men too poor to provide these materials would be supplied at public expense.
Sources:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/virg_rev.htm
http://www.doublegv.com/ggv/battles/tactics.html
While not everyone needs to have a 240 Golf or MG3, the militia must be capable of fielding small-arms equal to that of our current military, namely the M-16 or M4 that are manufactured to military specifications. I'm unsure as to whether grenades or field artillery or mortars and the likes are also covered under the second amendment, so that's a gray area for the moment since it's basically what the average citizen is able to purchase on their own or is provided to them (although various courts have banned the common ownership of such items, I'm broken in both directions on this part of the issue not because of fear of malicious intent, but because certain people do DUMB things and end up earning Darwin Awards for it).
As for the militia themselves, they are comported of organized (State) or "unorganized" (a misnomer for Private Militias).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
(small section in here about constitutional duties in regards to the states and militia)
http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ishmael
So, in answer to the thread's title, Could the NRA be nuts?
|
I'm divided on this since the NRA has and still; does work for Gun-owners, and against gun-owners.
Eg. The NRA helped write:
-The 1934 National Firearms Act (ban on Machineguns, sound suppressors, and short barreled rifles),
-The 1968 Gun Control act (Only firearms judged by ATF to have feasible sporting applications can be imported for civilian use)
-The 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act (This bill contained a provision that banned the import of firearms).
And the NRA has also passed various other Pro-gun bills, but for the most part has done little or nothing in recent years to repeal opressive firearms ordinances that are illegally imposed.
More info here in Wikipedia on various firearms acts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act