All Hail the Second Amendment

[Minimalist]

They were also talking about a well-regulated militia.  Not every shithead with a gun.

[The Grand Nudger]

Actually, they were talking about "every shithead with a gun" - as they made explicit in the sentence which follows the reference to a well regulated militia.  Not that you can blame them, whatever their reservations about militias were...they just didn't have alot of choice on the soldiering front back in the day...and didn't particularly like the thought of paying professionals or buying equipment.

All irrelevant today, as a living document (is it or isn't it..I can never remember) ofc?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This is a bullshit argument, obviously the founding fathers would be able to imagine that guns in 200 years wouldn't be the same as it was back then.

The 2A isn't about types of guns, it's about the ability of militia to muster with their long guns for drill. This was discussed extensively during the debate over whether to accept the new Constitution or not. 

Since then political gerrymandering has amended the Constitution without allowing the public to have a say.

[Minimalist]

The concept of a well-regulated militia was carried over from the Articles of Confederation.  Everyone knew what it meant.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/0...id-it-mean

That section of the Articles of Confederation relevant to the discussion of militias is to be found in paragraph four of Article 6 (of the Articles), which states that

“No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

They did not expect every shithead to bring his own gun.  The ammunition supply would have been a nightmare.

[The Grand Nudger]

-the disposition of the colonies (later states) supplies not exactly matching the requirements of those articles (which aren't the constituion)...ofc.  

Look, Min, I can understand that you think it's a dismally stupid right to have...but lets not pretend that it isn't in there, and didn't explicitly mean "the people" when it explicitly referred to "the people". They gave their reasons, it has it's preamble (you and I could probably geek out about all the factors that contributed to that for years)....but irrespective of that... it simply is what it is.

We can always change it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The concept of a well-regulated militia was carried over from the Articles of Confederation.  Everyone knew what it meant.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/0...id-it-mean

That section of the Articles of Confederation relevant to the discussion of militias is to be found in paragraph four of Article 6 (of the Articles), which states that

“No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

They did not expect every shithead to bring his own gun.  The ammunition supply would have been a nightmare.

Lots of them used their own pieces because they were familiar with them. You didn't have to go to the armory to get a rifle to practice with, you went hunting for supper and doubled down.

[Minimalist]

You'd feel pretty fucking stupid using a hunting rifle sans bayonet when some Indian came out of his woods swinging a tomahawk at you.  Bayonets were not ornaments.  They were meant to keep people from bashing your head in while your musket was empty.

[The Grand Nudger]

Mostly they were.  Both militia and regulars wore them in a scabbard the majority of the time.  They also had knives, hatchets, etc (in some cases tomahawks - distinct from the former in both purpose and design).  Nobody went hunting with a bayonet.  You could try it today and you'd quickly discover why.

(though you probably would wish you had it fixed if that happened)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You'd feel pretty fucking stupid using a hunting rifle sans bayonet when some Indian came out of his woods swinging a tomahawk at you.  Bayonets were not ornaments.  They were meant to keep people from bashing your head in while your musket was empty.

But this was Government-on-the-cheap, so the rifles were in short supply. Hence the need to BYOR. 

And when it got to spear time the shit had hit the fan anyway.

[The Grand Nudger]

Pretty much a case by case basis.  Wealthier areas could afford to outfit their troops.  Poor areas or areas too close to british control couldn't.  Within those subsets there were favored commanders, favored units. Everyone suffered from privation (a healthy black market of americans stealing supplies from americans for sale to americans).  Those who had guns brought them, those who didn't...didn't.    

One of the reasons -I- think the 2nd made it into the constitution is to due with the pre and early war conditions of supply, and also a bit of a jab at the british..or patriotic flourish, if you like, for the Coercive Acts.  Essentially, it legitimized our rabble rousing after the fact and continued the powder alarm narrative. It also helped to make -some- of the folks who signed our constitution into more than the profiteering arms smugglers that they, in fact, were.