Is this list intended to get a knee-jerk reaction, or a serious discussion of what bearing arms meant when the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified?
If it is the first possibility, no further comment is needed.
For starters, current public perceptions result from media propaganda and what the public school system is permitted to teach.
If the it is a serious discussion, a little review of the writings of folks who where around then would be a useful start. I will admit I don't have ready access to the time needed to properly research the question but hope one or more of our brother and sister Grendeliers might have the time, skills, and inclination to do a proper research task.
The following comments are offered to give prompts for Google and other search engines:
[INDENT]One of the Militia Acts (1797 I think) was on the books for more than a century and required that every able bodied male possess a firearm of the type used by infantry.
While that legislation, enacted by contemporaries of the writers of the Bill of Rights, specified rifles and not the more expensive ordnance, it does tend to illuminate what an individual might be expected to possess. I am pretty sure, however, that no particular restrictions were applied to artillery back then, but the stuff was far too expensive for an ordinary person to buy.
Fast forward to the first 1/3 of the 21st Century and we saw restrictions applied to who could own firearms, ostensibly because, e. g., Tommy Guns, were used by the Mafia and other semi-organized groups against the police. One speculates that the law was not a public safety measure but was enacted to prevent the need for law enforcement purchases of lots of modern firearms and training to keep up with the "Joneses."[/INDENT]
If it is the first possibility, no further comment is needed.
For starters, current public perceptions result from media propaganda and what the public school system is permitted to teach.
If the it is a serious discussion, a little review of the writings of folks who where around then would be a useful start. I will admit I don't have ready access to the time needed to properly research the question but hope one or more of our brother and sister Grendeliers might have the time, skills, and inclination to do a proper research task.
The following comments are offered to give prompts for Google and other search engines:
[INDENT]One of the Militia Acts (1797 I think) was on the books for more than a century and required that every able bodied male possess a firearm of the type used by infantry.
While that legislation, enacted by contemporaries of the writers of the Bill of Rights, specified rifles and not the more expensive ordnance, it does tend to illuminate what an individual might be expected to possess. I am pretty sure, however, that no particular restrictions were applied to artillery back then, but the stuff was far too expensive for an ordinary person to buy.
Fast forward to the first 1/3 of the 21st Century and we saw restrictions applied to who could own firearms, ostensibly because, e. g., Tommy Guns, were used by the Mafia and other semi-organized groups against the police. One speculates that the law was not a public safety measure but was enacted to prevent the need for law enforcement purchases of lots of modern firearms and training to keep up with the "Joneses."[/INDENT]
shootersnotes.com
"To those who have fought and almost died for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
-- Author Unknown
"If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished!" -- Milton Berle
"To those who have fought and almost died for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
-- Author Unknown
"If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished!" -- Milton Berle