3 ms·

When the second amendment was passed, a "well-regulated militia" was already a thing people did, required and defined by the Articles of Confederation. On one

by Terr_ 10mo ago

When the second amendment was passed, a "well-regulated militia" was already a thing people did, required and defined by the Articles of Confederation. On one hand, it was controlled by the state, which also had to supply materiel, and not just random citizens making a group. Upper ranks could only be appointed by the state legislatures. On the other hand, the weaponry the militia was expected to use included horse-drawn cannons, much more than just "home defense" handheld stuff.

bee_rider 10mo ago
We’re obviously failing the expectations of the founding fathers if we don’t have civilian owned HIMARS.
- Terr_ 10mo ago
  I'd argue the modern equivalent would be anything you can mount/move with a pick up or a trailer. So a machine-gun, but not a howitzer. Either way, those "field pieces" were the property of the state, that it was expected to supply by the AoC treaty, rather than something individuals were expected to bring along.
  - 15155 10mo ago
    The Constitution explicitly states the government may grant "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" to private citizens. What are those private citizens attacking enemy ships with exactly - strong words?
    - Terr_ 10mo ago
      Was... was that nonsense supposed to be some kind of "gotcha"? Giving the federal government the option to deputize individuals as international agents does not even remotely suggest that States were agreeing to completely abolish all their local gun-laws for all time. That's like claiming the permission to establish a national postal service somehow bars States from having DUI laws, because any drunkard could maybe suddenly be hired as a postman.
      - bee_rider 10mo ago
        I believe the argument is that in order to have the Letters of Marque be useful, it must have been the case that captains had these types of weapons. So, to fit it into your analogy, I think it is more like the permission to establish a national postal service implies that the government in the past had not outlawed literacy. There is no need for the government to provide services where the only possible users are already breaking the law. That said I’m not actually sure I believe this because ships have always been a bit weird legally, going about in international waters far away from any law enforcement… it wouldn’t surprise me if there was some specific cut out for weapons that were only to be used at sea or something…
        Terr_ 10mo ago
        > it must have been the case that captains had these types of weapons. Some did, but that doesn't mean states couldn't (or didn't) have laws touching on it. Similarly, I own and use a car today... but that doesn't mean "the state can't have safety requirements for vehicles", nor does it mean "the state can't bar a legally-blind 20-time DUI convict from driving." > your analogy I have a much better/closer one to offer. Consider that tomorrow the Federal legislature could grant a letter of Marque and Reprisal to someone who... Is a convicted murderer held on (state) death-row. Does that possible wrinkle mean the original Constitution actually banned States from running their own prison systems all along? Does it mean only the federal government is allowed to sentence anybody to carceral punishment? Obviously not, that'd be an insane conclusion... Yet the only difference here which realm of state law was "getting in the way." If a state can't have gun control because of an M&R letter, then it can't have prisons either.
      - potato3732842 10mo ago
        The point is that they implicitly expect private entities/individuals to be able to own and deploy "go toe to toe with the the state equivilent" quality units (though I don't think they expected the same quantity at that quality).
        15155 10mo ago
Terr_ 10mo ago
P.S.: In other words, the second amendment was designed purely to block the new federal government from disarming the states. I assert that any "Originalist" saying otherwise is actually betraying their claimed philosophy. If it never created a private right before, then it was wrongly "incorporated" by Supreme Court doctrine, and States ought to be free to set their own gun policies.
- 15155 10mo ago
  Meanwhile privateers sunk or captured 2200+ British ships during the Revolution - I'm sure this was all "organized" militia and every one of those cannons had a permit and taxes paid. Who are you trying to fool?
  - Terr_ 10mo ago
    LOL, nobody even considered naval ships to overlap with "the militia" in the first place. You're trying to sneak in some bizarre personal redefinition, like trying to claim your shoes are "vehicles" because they help you get places. The Articles of Confederation ("Constitution 1.0")--the thing I explicitly showcased, the first thing that "united the states" for over a decade before they wrote a sequel--clearly distinguishes between ships and militia as separate categories. The A is over 250 years old, RTFA already.

by Terr_ 10mo ago

bee_rider 10mo ago

We’re obviously failing the expectations of the founding fathers if we don’t have civilian owned HIMARS.

Terr_ 10mo ago
I'd argue the modern equivalent would be anything you can mount/move with a pick up or a trailer. So a machine-gun, but not a howitzer. Either way, those "field pieces" were the property of the state, that it was expected to supply by the AoC treaty, rather than something individuals were expected to bring along.
- 15155 10mo ago
  The Constitution explicitly states the government may grant "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" to private citizens. What are those private citizens attacking enemy ships with exactly - strong words?
  - Terr_ 10mo ago
    Was... was that nonsense supposed to be some kind of "gotcha"? Giving the federal government the option to deputize individuals as international agents does not even remotely suggest that States were agreeing to completely abolish all their local gun-laws for all time. That's like claiming the permission to establish a national postal service somehow bars States from having DUI laws, because any drunkard could maybe suddenly be hired as a postman.
    - bee_rider 10mo ago
      I believe the argument is that in order to have the Letters of Marque be useful, it must have been the case that captains had these types of weapons. So, to fit it into your analogy, I think it is more like the permission to establish a national postal service implies that the government in the past had not outlawed literacy. There is no need for the government to provide services where the only possible users are already breaking the law. That said I’m not actually sure I believe this because ships have always been a bit weird legally, going about in international waters far away from any law enforcement… it wouldn’t surprise me if there was some specific cut out for weapons that were only to be used at sea or something…
      - Terr_ 10mo ago
        > it must have been the case that captains had these types of weapons. Some did, but that doesn't mean states couldn't (or didn't) have laws touching on it. Similarly, I own and use a car today... but that doesn't mean "the state can't have safety requirements for vehicles", nor does it mean "the state can't bar a legally-blind 20-time DUI convict from driving." > your analogy I have a much better/closer one to offer. Consider that tomorrow the Federal legislature could grant a letter of Marque and Reprisal to someone who... Is a convicted murderer held on (state) death-row. Does that possible wrinkle mean the original Constitution actually banned States from running their own prison systems all along? Does it mean only the federal government is allowed to sentence anybody to carceral punishment? Obviously not, that'd be an insane conclusion... Yet the only difference here which realm of state law was "getting in the way." If a state can't have gun control because of an M&R letter, then it can't have prisons either.
    - potato3732842 10mo ago
      The point is that they implicitly expect private entities/individuals to be able to own and deploy "go toe to toe with the the state equivilent" quality units (though I don't think they expected the same quantity at that quality).
      - 15155 10mo ago

Terr_ 10mo ago

P.S.: In other words, the second amendment was designed purely to block the new federal government from disarming the states. I assert that any "Originalist" saying otherwise is actually betraying their claimed philosophy. If it never created a private right before, then it was wrongly "incorporated" by Supreme Court doctrine, and States ought to be free to set their own gun policies.

15155 10mo ago
Meanwhile privateers sunk or captured 2200+ British ships during the Revolution - I'm sure this was all "organized" militia and every one of those cannons had a permit and taxes paid. Who are you trying to fool?
- Terr_ 10mo ago
  LOL, nobody even considered naval ships to overlap with "the militia" in the first place. You're trying to sneak in some bizarre personal redefinition, like trying to claim your shoes are "vehicles" because they help you get places. The Articles of Confederation ("Constitution 1.0")--the thing I explicitly showcased, the first thing that "united the states" for over a decade before they wrote a sequel--clearly distinguishes between ships and militia as separate categories. The A is over 250 years old, RTFA already.