old dude

We all know the term "well regulated m*****a" as part of the Second Amendment language. No one ever mentions really what that was. Liberals today say that is the National Guard, or the US Army, but, no, the m*****a consisted of all males between the ages of about 14 to 65 (about) who were responsible to arrive with their own weapons. Nobody ever raises the issue of what weapons they were.
Farmer John had a shotgun, he brought it. Billy Bob brought his grandfather's blunderbuss and upgraded to a Brown Bess liberated from a Redcoat after a battle. If you had a state of the art Pennsylvania long rifle, you were a sharpshooter and if you only owned a brace of pistols, you brought them. The point is, you were responsible to bring your own gun. One you owned...it was understood. You had one to bring. And, it was probably going to be the best one you could afford or were most comfortable with. Most had the state of the art, flintlock, smoothbore muzzle loader.
What would that mean in today's terms? Should our modern "well regulated m*****a" only be allowed to bring smoothbore muskets to the battle or should they have the state of the art, modern weapons in their hands?

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

That, Old dude, is perhaps the best explanation I have ever read of the 2nd Amendment...and, I have mixed feelings as to most...from either side.

jimahrens Loc: California

bahmer

They should have the state of the art weapons and that of course includes M-16's and belt fed machine guns as well. I suppose it would also include grenade launchers and rocket launchers as well. Any and all hand guns both full auto and semi auto. This would all be limited to the purchasers pocketbook and the fact that they are law abiding citizens. No felonies of other criminal elements need apply.

Kevyn

Remember the second amendment says arms not guns. Wouldn't this include stinger antiaircraft missiles, field artillery, hand gernades, RPGs, helicopter gunships even suitcase nuclear weapons for those who could afford them.

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

Interesting point. The M*****a Acts did assume the population was armed, as those males eligible were required to bring their own arms and ammunition if called upon. I suppose an argument can be made that modern Americans should be required to supply their own tanks and planes if called upon by their government. But who can afford them?

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

Sorry Kevin...never got to your post.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

You do know under the current administration that various agencies have been militarized such as the IRS who is dangerous enough with a pen. Also the EPA. Why do you trust some flunky government worker with a m*****a attached but not your neighbor? Just a thought.

bahmer

How true

bahmer

Yup and if you have the cash go for it.

jimahrens Loc: California

Lets forget the second amendment exists for a few moments. As an individual we have a right to defend and protect ourselves from whomever or wh**ever threatens us. Human nature does not allow for us to accept terrorist acts, or any other type brutality. This was ordained to us at birth. Life is all about self preservation. So let me make this perfectly clear no Political Correctness. You come to harm me, my family friends or neighbors I will guarantee you will be pushing up daisy's. So as good as 2nd amendment is it is not the supreme law. Something for you to think about. Have you ever wondered why a Government is so intent on making laws that benefit them and not the people they serve.

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

I am aware of the militarization of various branches of gov't, from local to federal. And I don't trust either one (gov't or neighbor) more or less, as either can k**l me or not. But a discussion would require not blaming just this administration as the military has been donating surplus equipment to gov't agencies since 1944 (Surplus Property Act) and the 1990 National Defense Authorization Act. Why turn it into a political football?

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Because unfortunately under this administration that militarization has greatly accelerated. It is a political football, like it or not. The left in this country has no problem with the militarization of agencies but have a big problem with you and me owning a semi auto. The right not so much.

jimahrens Loc: California

Want to know what I think. Well going to tell you anyways. All those weapons are to make the fed employees feel safe. They are ill trained a hazard to themselves will be sent out to secure the surrounding area. They are nothing more than lemmings sacrificial lambs as it were. My Opinion. There is desperation on the left is evident by their actions.

bahmer

When I see government agencies gearing up with weapons and ammunition as well as militarized t***sportation equipment that is screaming at me that the government has something underfoot that they are planing a military o*******w of this country against the people. It is something that a number of years ago I wouldn't have feared but having Obama as president has given me more of a fear of this occurring than any other president in my lifetime and I am 73 years old. I have the least trust of this individual because the MSM has gone all liberal and can't be trusted to vet candidates anymore and Obama is a pathological liar and Hillary is no different. Again if the main stream media were doing their job this email scandal would be all over the news and she would have to step down out of embarrassment the same as Nixon did. Actually what Nixon did is far less of a crime than what Hillary has done and she gets a pass.