3 ms·

> (ie the original 2nd amendment was owning any kind of weapon for any purpose, including equivalent of battle ships today) Citation? As it originally reads,

by ulkesh 5y ago

> (ie the original 2nd amendment was owning any kind of weapon for any purpose, including equivalent of battle ships today) Citation? As it originally reads, the purpose as written is for the people to keep and bear arms for use within a well-regulated militia. The supreme court has ruled (almost 100 years later) that it does mean people can own guns, generally for the purpose of state defense [1]. This is the first I've heard of a regular citizen having the right to parade around in their own battleships. [1] - https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep116/usrep116252/usrep116252.pdf https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...

jack_h 5y ago
> The supreme court has ruled (almost 100 years later) that it does mean people can own guns, generally for the purpose of state defense [1]. That's not really a fair reading of Presser. That case merely upheld Cruikshank and by extension Barron. Since the Second Amendment was only a limitation on Congress (pre-incorporation) the State could effectively do anything. Presser just added on that States couldn't go so far as to deprive the Federal government the resource of the militia. > This is the first I've heard of a regular citizen having the right to parade around in their own battleships. People definitely had their own canons and ships back in the day and it wasn't solely a United States thing [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque
- readflaggedcomm 5y ago
  As written, the First Amendment restricts Congress, while the Second restricts at least all parties to the document, both Federal and State levels. Obviously, such plain readings aren't popular.
nradov 5y ago
In times up until the Civil War there were private citizens who owned ships armed with cannons far more powerful than any modern small arms.
Turing_Machine 5y ago
These were called "privateers", and they were very, very common all through the Age of Sail, not just in the United States, but in essentially all countries with a merchant or naval service. How it worked was that during the (rare) intervals of peace, you'd keep a stockpile of guns on shore, and run your ship as a more or less ordinary merchant vessel (virtually all of which were armed at the time, though not as heavily armed as a naval vessel or a kitted-out privateer). When war broke out, as it always did eventually, you'd cram your ship to the gills with guns and crew and get a license from some government (not necessarily your own!) to cruise against that government's enemy. This was called a "letter of marque". It was entirely possible for a (say) Dutch privateer to get a letter of marque from the (say) British government to attack (say) French vessels. Normally privateers would limit themselves to attacking enemy merchant ships, or occasionally looting enemy ports, as their primary motivation was profit. They typically did not want to tangle with full-blown naval vessels. Privateers were outlawed in the 19th Century by an international treaty signed by most countries. Interestingly, the United States has never signed that treaty. The relevant constitutional authority in the United States is Article I Section 8, which explicitly grants Congress the authority to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal". The advantage to the government was that it effectively had a secondary navy it could hot-swap in without having to pay to support it during peacetime. The advantage to the privateers was that they got to keep the lion's share of the value of any ship, and any ship's cargo, they captured (the government did take a rakeoff, of course, because that is what governments do). It was essentially legalized piracy. Figure out how much an entire container ship would be worth if you were allowed to just go out and grab one, and you'll be in the right ballpark, except back then it was expensive spices, precious metals, silk, etc. rather than electronic trinkets. Though it was obviously a high-risk business, some privateer owners (and even crews) became incredibly wealthy from this practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer
infamia 5y ago
Into the early 1800's, privately-owned warships were not at all rare. During the Revolutionary War the vast majority of the Navy consisted of privateers (aka private citizens warships). http://www.usmm.org/revolution.html http://www.usmm.org/revolution.html
ulkesh 5y ago
Thank you all for your replies. I suppose I was meaning battleships in modern day (since I assumed that's what was meant to what I was replying), but the historical context is interesting and relevant.

by ulkesh 5y ago

jack_h 5y ago

> The supreme court has ruled (almost 100 years later) that it does mean people can own guns, generally for the purpose of state defense [1]. That's not really a fair reading of Presser. That case merely upheld Cruikshank and by extension Barron. Since the Second Amendment was only a limitation on Congress (pre-incorporation) the State could effectively do anything. Presser just added on that States couldn't go so far as to deprive the Federal government the resource of the militia. > This is the first I've heard of a regular citizen having the right to parade around in their own battleships. People definitely had their own canons and ships back in the day and it wasn't solely a United States thing [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque

readflaggedcomm 5y ago
As written, the First Amendment restricts Congress, while the Second restricts at least all parties to the document, both Federal and State levels. Obviously, such plain readings aren't popular.

nradov 5y ago

In times up until the Civil War there were private citizens who owned ships armed with cannons far more powerful than any modern small arms.

Turing_Machine 5y ago

These were called "privateers", and they were very, very common all through the Age of Sail, not just in the United States, but in essentially all countries with a merchant or naval service. How it worked was that during the (rare) intervals of peace, you'd keep a stockpile of guns on shore, and run your ship as a more or less ordinary merchant vessel (virtually all of which were armed at the time, though not as heavily armed as a naval vessel or a kitted-out privateer). When war broke out, as it always did eventually, you'd cram your ship to the gills with guns and crew and get a license from some government (not necessarily your own!) to cruise against that government's enemy. This was called a "letter of marque". It was entirely possible for a (say) Dutch privateer to get a letter of marque from the (say) British government to attack (say) French vessels. Normally privateers would limit themselves to attacking enemy merchant ships, or occasionally looting enemy ports, as their primary motivation was profit. They typically did not want to tangle with full-blown naval vessels. Privateers were outlawed in the 19th Century by an international treaty signed by most countries. Interestingly, the United States has never signed that treaty. The relevant constitutional authority in the United States is Article I Section 8, which explicitly grants Congress the authority to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal". The advantage to the government was that it effectively had a secondary navy it could hot-swap in without having to pay to support it during peacetime. The advantage to the privateers was that they got to keep the lion's share of the value of any ship, and any ship's cargo, they captured (the government did take a rakeoff, of course, because that is what governments do). It was essentially legalized piracy. Figure out how much an entire container ship would be worth if you were allowed to just go out and grab one, and you'll be in the right ballpark, except back then it was expensive spices, precious metals, silk, etc. rather than electronic trinkets. Though it was obviously a high-risk business, some privateer owners (and even crews) became incredibly wealthy from this practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer

infamia 5y ago

Into the early 1800's, privately-owned warships were not at all rare. During the Revolutionary War the vast majority of the Navy consisted of privateers (aka private citizens warships). http://www.usmm.org/revolution.html http://www.usmm.org/revolution.html

ulkesh 5y ago

Thank you all for your replies. I suppose I was meaning battleships in modern day (since I assumed that's what was meant to what I was replying), but the historical context is interesting and relevant.