The second amendment says "arms", not "firearms" At the time of its writing "arms" were muskets, sabres, poleaxes, lances, cannon and rifles. The second amendment was government on the cheap, an encouragement to the citizenry to keep their own weapons for national defense so the weak central government didn't have to supply them.
The naval equivalent was Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 11 "Letters of Marque and Reprisal", authorizing private ships to act on behalf of the government and attack and capture enemy vessels.
Neither of these encourgaements proved particularly successful. The Naval Act of 1794 was passed creating the U.S. Navy and authorizing construction of the first six frigates, including the USS Constitution.
The second amendment failed so miserably that in 1794 the new federal government decided to manufacture its own muskets and established the armory system, with the first armories built at Springfield, Mass, and Harpers Ferry, WV. Wise move on Washington’s (that’s George’s) part, since for the private citizen refused to keep guns at home--a musket was expensive, prone to rust very quickly, unreliable, and became a club after the first shot.
The current masturbatory frenzy that is attached to the second amendment only materialized about 50 years ago, sprouting from right wing fringe movements like the John Birch society and the KKK as well as general fear of communism. The insertion of the words "under god" in the pledge of allegiance in 1954 and "In God We Trust" in 1956 were outgrowths of these times.
A good guide to the original writers' intended meaning of the second amendment, in which the initial phrase "A well-regulated militia" is given both explanation and proper emphasis, can be found in United States v. Miller, 1939.
The Robert's court, with its bizarre opinion that the second amendment applied to keeping a machine gun in the home for self-protection, is absurd and clearly an activist court making law where none existed.
Second Amendment, meaning of
← View full post
The second amendment says "arms", not "firearms" At the time of its writing "arms" were muskets, sabres, poleaxes, lances, cannon and rifles. The second amendment was government on the cheap, an encouragement to the citizenry to keep their own weapons for national defense so the weak central government didn't have to supply them.
The naval equivalent was Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 11 "Letters of Marque and Reprisal", authorizing private ships to act on behalf of the government and attack and capture enemy vessels.
Neither of these encourgaements proved particularly successful. The Naval Act of 1794 was passed creating the U.S. Navy and authorizing construction of the first six frigates, including the USS Constitution.
The second amendment failed so miserably that in 1794 the new federal government decided to manufacture its own muskets and established the armory system, with the first armories built at Springfield, Mass, and Harpers Ferry, WV. Wise move on Washington’s (that’s George’s) part, since for the private citizen refused to keep guns at home--a musket was expensive, prone to rust very quickly, unreliable, and became a club after the first shot.
The current masturbatory frenzy that is attached to the second amendment only materialized about 50 years ago, sprouting from right wing fringe movements like the John Birch society and the KKK as well as general fear of communism. The insertion of the words "under god" in the pledge of allegiance in 1954 and "In God We Trust" in 1956 were outgrowths of these times.
A good guide to the original writers' intended meaning of the second amendment, in which the initial phrase "A well-regulated militia" is given both explanation and proper emphasis, can be found in United States v. Miller, 1939.
The Robert's court, with its bizarre opinion that the second amendment applied to keeping a machine gun in the home for self-protection, is absurd and clearly an activist court making law where none existed.