On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 15:59:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/24/2020 8:54 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 13:58:40 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 1/24/2020 12:57 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:


The founders of this nation, thank God, were very powerful thinkers. But to you they were dopes and you know much better.

They were fairly sharp guys. Not gods, not saints, not infallible, but
sharp guys.

They believed in well-regulated militias. That was understood quite well
for about 200 years.

They believed in a militia quite simply because that is all that they
there was in the 1700's and yes, they tossed in the word "well
regulated", apparently in hope, as none of the state militias of the
1700's were what one might call "well regulated" and yes, there is
sufficient history available to realize this. Read up on the
Penobscot Expedition.

It was only in very recent times that the firearms industry and some gun
nuts got lawyers to convince activist judges that all precedents and all
previous legal thought should be thrown into a trash can and shot to
hell with an AR-15 fitted with a bump stock.

Read some history Frank. In the 1700's there was no standing army in
the colonies and the only armed defense available was the town/state
militia which by the mid 1700's were being viewed with some dismay by
the colonial governments. When Washington tried to mobilize the
Virginia Militia to fight against an Indian attack, in 1755, the
follow was written,
" he experienced all the evils of insubordination among the troups,
perverseness in the militia, inactivity in the officers, disregard of
orders, and reluctance in the civil authorities to render a proper
support."

Thus, I suggest, the term "well regulated" might well have more then a
cursory meaning.

As for AR-15's I might comment that contrary to popular belief the
bulk of the "continental Army, and the militia before them were armed
with smooth bore muskets - the rapid fire weapon of the era. From all
the records I can find there were in the neighborhood of 1,500
riflemen, in total, in the Colonial army during the war. However
rifles may have been a factor in the Colonial victory in the battle of
The Battle of King's Mountain.

I can only assume due to the rapid acceptance of fully automatic
weapons by various forces in modern times that had a weapon like the
AR-15 been available in 1775 that both sides would have adopted it :-)
Aft all both side had adopted cannon.

John, you haven't written anything new to me. And nothing that you've
written has rebutted what I said.

The Constitution was written in a time when militias with muskets were
the best insurance against an overseas power taking control of the
territory of the brand new United States. Those militias needed to be
well regulated, or they themselves could turn the place into 1990s
Mogadishu, but in slow motion, with at least 15 seconds between shots.

Actually a very well trained infantryman could fire 4 shots a minute,
but the standard in the British army was 3 rounds a minute, i.e. 20
seconds per shot, and other armies even slower... but the fact remains
that this was "rapid fire" in those days.


We now have millions of fat Rambo wannabees buying guns not to keep
woodchucks out of the garden or put rabbits on the table. They're
choosing weapons with fantasy battles in mind, outfitting them with
magazines that have no practical use outside a firefight, and pretending
that they're going to use them against anyone who demands their
background be checked. With funding from the industry supplying their
toys, they've gotten the courts to twist away from true originalist
interpretations of the 2nd amendment.

What these Rambos do is not what your family did in New England. It's
not what the Founders imagined in the 1700s. It's not what happens in
other economically advanced countries. And our gun death stats and mass
shooting stats show the results.


Ah but Frank. The original meaning of the 2nd amendment was to ensure
an armed citizenry in order that a militia could be formed.

A bit more history is beneficial:

Connecticut's 1650 law required everyone above the age of 16, with a
few exceptions, to own a good musket or other gun, fit for service....
A previous law, in 1636 law required every A 1636 law required every
militiaman, i.e., male 16 to 50 years of age, to have two pounds of
gunpowder and 20 bullets at home the end of August
next. The militia officer for each settlement was to take view of
their several Arms whether they be serviceable or no.

Rhode Island told its militia officers to go to
every inhabitant [in Portsmouth and] see whether every one of them has
powder and bullets.
Rhode Island also ordered that no man shall go two miles from the
Towne unarmed, either with Gun or Sword; and that none shall come to
any public Meeting without his weapon.There was a fine of five
shillings for failing to be armed
..
New Haven Colony, legislature, ordered every man from 16 to 60 to be
armed with a good gun, a sword, a pound of good powder, 4 fathom [24
feet] of match for a matchlock, 5 or 6 good flints fitted for every
fire lock, and 4 pound of pistol bullets, or 24 bullets fitted for
every gun.

Additionally, In New Haven Colony, the militia (all males from 16 to
60) were called by the beating of a drum to the public worship of
God....\Members of the militia were required to attend with their arms
complete, their guns ready charged,with their match for their
matchlocks and flints ready fitted in their firelocks. (A Mathew
Camfield was fined twelve pence for want of some powder last viewing
day..., and for not bringing his arms to meeting one lecture day, 2s.
6d.)

So, in fact, the 2nd amendment was nothing new, or strange, or unique.
It was simply adding to the new country's set of laws a law that
paralleled existing state or colony laws.

Yes, one might argue that the 2nd amendment is no longer required...
after all an estimated 10,000 ran away rather than serve in the
"militia" last time they tried to draft them... and according to the
Nation's laws it can be changed.

Unfortunately, it requires a vote to change and apparently to date no
one has been able to convince a majority of the citizenry to vote for
the change.

So, you can wave your arms in the air, and rant and rave, to your
heart's content but unless you can convince 2/3rds of the citizenry to
agree with you there isn't going to be any change.

By the way, a number of states have gun laws regarding possession of
"assault weapons". Ohio doesn't seem to be in that group, in fact a
casual reading seems to show that one can carry a rifle or pistol
openly. Right down the main street :-)

--
cheers,

John B.