Join TexasGunTalk

SCOTUS might do the work FineStien cannot

Discussion in 'Gun Legislation' started by Ole Cowboy, Nov 10, 2017.

  1. Ole Cowboy

    Ole Cowboy TGT Addict

    May 23, 2013
    17 Oaks Ranch
    My reading as nothing but a common man and what I believe the INTENT was this is an INDIVIDUAL God given right to defend ones self and family and to be able to serve in the militia when called upon.

    If you try to construe the 2nd as an unlimited ownership of anything beyond and individual right you run the risk of changing the definition to what kind of weapons we are allowed to . Now the argument REALLY gets in trouble. I can take a M16 class or weapons and the sidearm class (1911, Beretta, Sig etc) and use them to defend my family, hunt etc. But the M110 is not exactly a squirrel gun, or can I employ it to defend my home effectively unless I train my family as FDC, Ammo loaders and my son to be a FO.

    The 2nd does give you the right to create a standing militia. I can no case for crew served weapons and trust me its a path we do not want to try and go down...

  2. Younggun

    Younggun Doer of Deeds TGT Supporter Admin

    Jul 31, 2011
    hill co.
    Do you not believe the intent of the 2A included the defense against a tyrannical government, similar to the situation the founder had just gone through when they wrote the 2A?

    You can argue whether or not it's a legal fight worth fighting, but that's not really the discussion. This discussion started as whether or not the founders believed crew served weapons such as cannons of their time were protected under the 2A. If you believe they were but modern versions of the same should not you are setting a dangerous precedent.
  3. easy rider

    easy rider Allotropic Transformer TGT Supporter

    Jun 10, 2015
    Odessa, Tx
    I believe it is a moot point arguing whether or not we as citizens should be able to own howitzers and tanks. We are in a battle to keep what we now have, and if that's successful, then we can try to chip away at what we had lost.
  4. karlac

    karlac Gone fishin' ... TGT Supporter Lifetime Member

    Aug 21, 2013
    WestU, TX
    The wording of the 2A logically dictates that its intent is to insure that the people's right to bear the arms that could meet force, with a like force, in the event it became necessary to the security of a Free state ... there is no "free state", without free men.

    Any other imagined intent or interpretation, other than the insuring the ability to meet force with like force in defense of the free state, and therefore free men, is logically flawed, both militarily or in self defense ... the men who instituted the foresight exhibited in the Constitution were to damned smart to do otherwise.
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2017
  5. Wiliamr

    Wiliamr Active Member

    Apr 15, 2011
  6. pronstar

    pronstar Well-Known TGT Supporter

    Jul 2, 2017
    True, but resistance fighters using small arms in Iraq, Afghan, Syria and elsewhere sure were/are a PITA for our forces.

    Unless we go back to carpet bombing - and that would include against our own citizens - at some point fighting goes from house to house/CQB.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    karlac likes this.
  7. Darkpriest667

    Darkpriest667 Well-Known

    Jan 13, 2017
    Fort Worth

    They don't give a shit about civilians when it comes to drone strikes and the Obama administration proved that.

  8. TheDan

    TheDan 4th Best Member TGT Supporter

    Nov 11, 2008
    Austin - Rockdale
    2A argument; circa 10,000 B.C.

  9. schmellba99

    schmellba99 Member

    Mar 30, 2008
    Houston & San Antonio
    No kidding.

    It is a shame that the Federalist Papers are not required reading. Federalist 48 speaks specifically about the 2nd Amendment and what the fuggin founding fathers meant when they drafted it and included it in the BOR, which I am glad they ended up doing. There was actually a huge debate about including right to bear arms in the BOR because, at that time, it was considered such a universal right that wasn't worthy of debate in the first place.

    The entire purpose is to ensure that the citizens have, to a pretty high degree anyway, the same type of firearms that the military would use - to combat that military if it became necessary.
  10. schmellba99

    schmellba99 Member

    Mar 30, 2008
    Houston & San Antonio
    A good portion of the artillery used by the continental army during the revolution was privately owned.

    Now I would agree that private ownership of nukes, bombs, etc. is not a good idea and would not be for it.

Share This Page