|
Post by demonnachos on Jun 22, 2016 20:19:12 GMT
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
People interpret that two ways. One is they focus on the first bit and claim they only meant for a local watch to have guns. The other is to look at just the second bit as saying the US populace has the right to all weapons.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jun 22, 2016 20:21:40 GMT
As far as I'm concerned, I see no "well regulated militia" anywhere in the United States. California doesn't regulate well, Florida doesn't regulate well, none of the states to my knowledge actually regulate anything to do with firearms in a particularly good way.
So... if there is no well regulated militia, forcing people to get a license for firearms ain't infringing on anything.
Also, if you want to get real specific, it would be perfectly fine to then let them have all the guns they want, but completely and utterly ban access to ammunition of any kind, including homemade stuff. That would be perfectly constitutional so long as you could argue that "arms" just refers to guns and not ammo. And you could probably make that argument from an English language standpoint if not from a actual, you know, logic standpoint. But that's what you're doing by throwing out "shall not be infringed" but ignoring the "well regulated" part.
Also, "shall not be infringed" kind of goes without saying, doesn't it? I mean, you don't say: There is a right to stab people in the face, and that right shall not be infringed. If its a right, that's kind of already made clear.
God the founders of the US needed to learn how to Grammar. That's basically a sentence fragment. Fucking commas! Fucking goddamn commas used by a bunch of illiterate, backwards, colonial scum! (erm, I mean, uh... yay freedom?)
TL;DR: The "well regulated militia" part is easily interpreted as necessary for the "bearing of arms" part. Without part one, there is no part 2. Which is how it should be.
Edit: Nachos, it isn't just the Watch, since people were able to be called up to serve in a militia, which was not a watch. The first part of that is clearly a wrong interpretation. But the people who owned the guns (the militia) had to be trained and know how to use the guns safely and properly. That is what "well regulated" means. So you can still have "the people get guns" without "all the idiots get guns too!" I'm not interpreting that in either way you mentioned, and I don't think people looking at the damn 2nd Amendment honestly would see it as saying either of those two things.
|
|
|
Post by demonnachos on Jun 22, 2016 20:39:12 GMT
"Town Watch" was just an example, but each state actually does in fact have a state militia. We just call it a National Guard now, so yes there is in fact a "well-regulated militia" for each state with its members going through standard Army training but only serving part-time as soldiers.
In simple terms, "The states need a militia so the right to arms must be protected." Guns aren't the only thing protected; halberds, pikes, swords, and any other type of weapon are all included in that clause (hence "Arms" rather than "guns").
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jun 22, 2016 20:40:02 GMT
You're using "regulated" in modern terms, this was written near 250 years ago. Root word is "regalia". A "well regulated militia" wouldn't be that they were controlled or disciplined, it would be that they were well outfitted.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jun 22, 2016 21:13:02 GMT
I don't think that's the case, Wordweaver. They knew what the word "regulated" meant.
The National Guard isn't a militia in the sense that was meant back then, which was when blokes could just get together and go fight. Washington detested the militia, but...
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jun 22, 2016 22:06:45 GMT
In 200 years nobody will understand any laws anyway because language is getting so fucked up.
I'm just glad they didn't write it in Benjamin Franklin's new shorthand.
Anyway...
Very irritated with FedEx. My new scope was supposed to come in two days ago and it's still wandering around "in transit". I can't take the Mosin to the range to see how badly I messed it up without any way of aiming it.
|
|
|
Post by demonnachos on Jun 23, 2016 6:48:42 GMT
Rubber doesn't make a good sword
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jun 23, 2016 7:54:16 GMT
Yeah, I've gotten flak when asking questions online; I've been told that I don't really want to build a long, heavy AR, I want a carbine instead, or that I don't understand what AR15s are about. I think I was asking in the wrong places.
Colt makes a civilian version of the A2, I found a used one here for about $950US. I bet they're great rifles, but they have a fixed carry handle. My only requirements for what I want are that it needs to have a flat top receiver and no M4 feed ramps (and it isn't a from a dodgy manufacturer, naturally), it's just that I'm ordering parts in here and there, and it's probably going to be at least a year before I have everything together to build a working rifle... I just can't wait that long, I'll see if I can buy a used rifle and then swamp out the parts as I get them.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jun 23, 2016 17:21:38 GMT
You can match an M4 barrel extension with a standard receiver without any problems, just don't do it the other way around. So if you're hacking together parts that's one thing you can half ass.
Don't forget when you buy complete and start parting out you're essentially paying for the parts twice.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jun 23, 2016 17:22:58 GMT
Rubber doesn't make a good sword I guess they don't trust him with a blunt steel sword. Or even a wooden scabbard with a hilt glued to it.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jun 23, 2016 18:42:11 GMT
www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-29Well, okay, so I'm wrong. There are definitely some grounds to suggest that the "Well Regulated Militia" referred to the National Guard, and that it was meant to be a well trained, even government supplied, force made up from the locals meant to replace the need for a standing army. Though, admittedly, the US realized how that failed miserably during the war of 1812.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jun 23, 2016 22:53:14 GMT
I got the Mosin finished. And got the 8 inch barrel for my DW in the mail. Now that I see it on the gun I'm really glad I didn't go for a 10 inch. That would have been too much.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jun 24, 2016 0:14:03 GMT
Both of those look very nice. But the main question really is: How well does the Mosin fire?
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jun 24, 2016 1:33:07 GMT
Just got back from the range. Got some good news and some bad news about the Mosin. The good news is that shoots sub 1 inch groups at the same range I couldn't keep it under 3 inches before. A significant improvement. The trigger is excellent now. And the rubber butt pad made the recoil almost bearable. The bad news is the 10 dollar scope mount I bought broke after about 20 rounds. I didn't really have high hopes for it in the first place though. There's still an occasional need to slap it open so I'm gonna have to do a little more work on the bolt.
|
|
|
Post by demonnachos on Jun 24, 2016 2:10:36 GMT
Even with paint the mosin looks goofy with that grip.
|
|