Do you trust your neighbor to own a sword?

[Tahts-a-dats-ago]

in actuality, I own 579 fishing rods, well over 3869 lures, 7 boxes of assorted hooks, 2 1/2 tons of sinkers. My wife tells me I'm a hoarder, I tell her I don't want to be standing around when the government comes to take em.

two questions:

Should I tell my neighbors

and


Should I buy more or do you think I have enough

Two answers:

1. That is up to you.

2. That is up to you.

Would you want it any other way?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Duckshot]

ok, I just have a slight addiction to fishing rods but I've been a pondering about what the founding fathers meant by a "Well regulated militia" when they wrote that 2nd amendment.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, ........"

It should rank right up there with the rest of it, don't ya think? Do you surmise they meant the National Guard? The Civil Air Patrol?, The National Park Service?

Who was that "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" supposed to be "well regulated" by?

Simple, you misunderstand the English language. Read the following sentence-

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The word "regulated" is used an an adjective to describe the "militia", and not the people.

It'd be like if It said "Waffle cones with sprinkles, being nessecary to flavorful delight, the right of the people to eat ice cream shall not be infringed"

You might think we can only eat ice cream with waffle cones and sprinkles, but you are wrong.

 

[Tahts-a-dats-ago]

ok, I just have a slight addiction to fishing rods but I've been a pondering about what the founding fathers meant by a "Well regulated militia" when they wrote that 2nd amendment.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, ........"

It should rank right up there with the rest of it, don't ya think? Do you surmise they meant the National Guard? The Civil Air Patrol?, The National Park Service?

Who was that "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" supposed to be "well regulated" by?

"Well regulated" meant well trained - it had/has absolutely nothing to do with governing, rules, legislation, or even "regulation" (as the word tends to be used today).

There was no National Guard, No Civil Air Patrol, no National Park Service.

There was the militia - which consisted of all able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45. That still holds true (with a few inclusions) to this day, although the legal definition of militia has been categorized into two groups:

1. The organized militia (National Guard and Naval Militia)

2. The unorganized militia (able-bodied citizens 17-45 - not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia).

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes (search that exact phrase and today's legal definition should come up)



The clause "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"... is a stated purpose for the immediately following "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The 2nd Amendment does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms to those in a militia - as evidenced by the words "the right of the people."

The framers were very intelligent people. Had they intended to recognize a power held by government - they would have (and did with the powers legally held by government).

The first 10 Amendments are all negatives - as in they specifically forbid the government from having power over the rights cited. The 9th and 10th Amendments hammer that fact home.

Don't believe me?

Read the thoughts expressed by the men who authored the Constitution (and Bill of Rights). Read the thoughts expressed by the men who ratified the Constitution (and Bill of Rights) - their thoughts are of the upmost importance because they're the people who made the Constitution our supreme law.

Read the Federalist papers.
Read the Anti-federalist papers.
Read the Congressional archives.
Read the transcripts of the Constitutional Convention.
Read the thoughts of the framers/founders - Washington, Franklin, Madison, Adams, Jefferson, Jay, etc...

Not one single founder/framer/ratifier stated a belief that the 2nd Amendment did anything other than protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms.


'A well trained neighborhood watch group, being necessary to the security of free neighborhood, the right of the people to keep and use cell phones shall not be infringed.'

Nobody could read that above analogy and seriously pretend it somehow granted government the power to prohibit the law-abiding citizen from owning a cell phone (or multiple cell phones). The sentence (analogy) gives a reason for its declaration that the people have a right to keep/use cell phones and that the right cannot be infringed upon. It, like the 2nd Amendment, is a clear restriction on government.

Note also the word 'shall.' It is a directive - an order. It is not a suggestion, nor is it open for creative definition. "Shall not" makes infringement illegal. Not just occasional infringements, or infringements really desired by some - any infringement is illegal.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

ok, I just have a slight addiction to fishing rods but I've been a pondering about what the founding fathers meant by a "Well regulated militia" when they wrote that 2nd amendment.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, ........"

It should rank right up there with the rest of it, don't ya think? Do you surmise they meant the National Guard? The Civil Air Patrol?, The National Park Service?

Who was that "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" supposed to be "well regulated" by?

The Bill of Rights are rights for the people that the government can not infringed on. If the right to keep and bear alms was only reserved to the militia it would have said "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, it doesn't say that, it says "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.".

Some focus on the prefatory phrase “a well regulated militia” and insist the 2A protects a collective right of the states to form armed militias. That’s quite a stretch considering the other nine amendments specifically focus on individual rights.
Most Americans understand that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” means just what it says and refers to the right of an individual. It’s worth pointing out that the 2A does not create the right to keep and bear arms but instead prevents the government from infringing upon that right. The right of self-protection is a natural right of all people and firearms are an integral part of that.

In 2008 SCOTUS ruled in US vs Heller that the right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on a citizen being a member of a militia.

 

[Tesorodeoro]

....the DOI says nothing about a right to procreation. No such right exists.

Bait not taken? Some document drafted up by people I never met surely didn’t grant or create my rights.

 

[Duckshot]

Bait not taken? Some document drafted up by people I never met surely didn’t grant or create my rights.

Patience.

Such right may exist but it is more depenent on circumstance than just two heterosexuals hooking up. The simplest definition of a right is any action that does not wrong another person.

 

[Tesorodeoro]

"Well regulated" meant well trained - it had/has absolutely nothing to do with governing, rules, legislation, or even "regulation" (as the word tends to be used today).

There was no National Guard, No Civil Air Patrol, no National Park Service.

There was the militia - which consisted of all able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45. That still holds true (with a few inclusions) to this day, although the legal definition of militia has been categorized into two groups:

1. The organized militia (National Guard and Naval Militia)

2. The unorganized militia (able-bodied citizens 17-45 - not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia).

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes (search that exact phrase and today's legal definition should come up)



The clause "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"... is a stated purpose for the immediately following "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The 2nd Amendment does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms to those in a militia - as evidenced by the words "the right of the people."

The framers were very intelligent people. Had they intended to recognize a power held by government - they would have (and did with the powers legally held by government).

The first 10 Amendments are all negatives - as in they specifically forbid the government from having power over the rights cited. The 9th and 10th Amendments hammer that fact home.

Don't believe me?

Read the thoughts expressed by the men who authored the Constitution (and Bill of Rights). Read the thoughts expressed by the men who ratified the Constitution (and Bill of Rights) - their thoughts are of the upmost importance because they're the people who made the Constitution our supreme law.

Read the Federalist papers.
Read the Anti-federalist papers.
Read the Congressional archives.
Read the transcripts of the Constitutional Convention.
Read the thoughts of the framers/founders - Washington, Franklin, Madison, Adams, Jefferson, Jay, etc...

Not one single founder/framer/ratifier stated a belief that the 2nd Amendment did anything other than protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms.


'A well trained neighborhood watch group, being necessary to the security of free neighborhood, the right of the people to keep and use cell phones shall not be infringed.'

Nobody could read that above analogy and seriously pretend it somehow granted government the power to prohibit the law-abiding citizen from owning a cell phone (or multiple cell phones). The sentence (analogy) gives a reason for its declaration that the people have a right to keep/use cell phones and that the right cannot be infringed upon. It, like the 2nd Amendment, is a clear restriction on government.

Note also the word 'shall.' It is a directive - an order. It is not a suggestion, nor is it open for creative definition. "Shall not" makes infringement illegal. Not just occasional infringements, or infringements really desired by some - any infringement is illegal.

The right to a well regulated militia meant we the people had the RIGHT to organize and train in a military fashion outside the federal government without having labels attached then laws written to prosecute those that do exercise those protected rights. That in no means was intended to limit being armed in the first place..duh!

 

[releventchair]

ok, I just have a slight addiction to fishing rods but I've been a pondering about what the founding fathers meant by a "Well regulated militia" when they wrote that 2nd amendment.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, ........"

It should rank right up there with the rest of it, don't ya think? Do you surmise they meant the National Guard? The Civil Air Patrol?, The National Park Service?

Who was that "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" supposed to be "well regulated" by?

Regulated militia has been hashed and rehashed.
My take on this thread when addressing it was (in case you missed it) citizens (yes citizens) having the means and ability to exercise arms proficiency. For the thier well being (in terms of defense) as well as the well being of the nation .
Now historic , then active , defense from those who would assault citizens or the nation.
Not much has changed. Citizens not able and proficient in defense (by arms) are....Assaulted at the whims of whomever.

Congrats on the fishing paraphernalia.
Silk line. Gut leaders are a thing of the past. On recent history newer types of braided line (vs old stuff for steel rods ,baitcasters and tip up fishing) are the modern go to.
Leaving our old rod guides obsolete as new braids will chew through them.
And rod materials have evolved.
I just acquired a couple more bamboo flyrods. Building one is quite the art. As you likely know....But obsolete in modern costs and commonality.

Guns have evolved. I like blackpowder. My oldest pattern is from the sixteen hundreds. As are some accoutrements. And some clothing worn to historical shoots.
But , I have modern arms too. Just as I need to buy a couple more rods. And look at the stack in the basement and wonder why they are still there, modern guns have thier place.
I'm no fan of modern military. Just not familiar with the platforms.
But I do have an older one left after thinning the herd.
They have thier place still.
I open up on a pair or more of coyotes , I'm not going to grab one of my deer rifles with a few round capacity if given the choice through timing....
Which is often based on hearing them at night nearer than usual , in advance and I put the "coyote watch" note on the door I let the dogs in and out of. And a rifle near by.
For defense of my dogs.
Yes , there is a fence. Which coyotes if you study grabbed dogs cases , can breach in multiple ways.

I have an old stout Johnny Walker fiberglass trolling rod that would probably kill a coyote. But they are not going to let me get that close willingly...

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Charlie P. (NY) -

Again, your only "solution" is to ban something. I discussed above the common sense steps taken to reduce automobile fatalities. Answers that worked.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

? The thing I would ban is insane people and life sentences (>20 years sentence = auto death penalty, two years max appeal time). Are you sure you attributed the correct post/comment to me? Or was that the extreme and satirical example I introduced that since motorcycles have no sensible use and are frequently fatal to the owner they have no use or justifyable purpose? I have a NY class 5 & 7 license and have owned several motorcycles. And, doubtless, would be dead or severely crippled if I had continued. But I recognized my inability to operate one sanely (throttle full on or off, no in between) so I chose abstinence.

But that does not mean I would ban them. Other folks enjoy them and use them properly. It's not my privledge to deny their freedom because of my opinions. THAT was my point. My opinions do not justify a reduction in the rights of others.

Nor do yours or anyone else's.

 

[Tesorodeoro]

ok, I just have a slight addiction to fishing rods but I've been a pondering about what the founding fathers meant by a "Well regulated militia" when they wrote that 2nd amendment.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, ........"

It should rank right up there with the rest of it, don't ya think? Do you surmise they meant the National Guard? The Civil Air Patrol?, The National Park Service?

Who was that "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" supposed to be "well regulated" by?

Do a little research of the use of the phrase “well-regulated”. Go back to 1791 and earlier.
Words have meanings and they are sub just to change over time.

 

[Kantuckkeean]

W

Most Americans understand that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” means just what it says and refers to the right of an individual. It’s worth pointing out that the 2A does not create the right to keep and bear arms but instead prevents the government from infringing upon that right. The right of self-protection is a natural right of all people and firearms are an integral part of that.

Right. But it doesn’t say, “the right of any and all of the people to keep and bear any and all arms (even those modified to bend rules) at a reasonable cost shall not be infringed.”

Should C4, frag and incendiary grenades, RPGs, ICBMs, etc. be easily accessible? I’m glad the government banned bump stocks. In my opinion, if you want a Class 3, you should put on your big boy pants with your big boy wallet and get approved by BATFE (aka “the Fun Police”)... I don’t think you should be allowed to attach a cheap piece of plastic to an automatic rifle to make it act like a full auto. I also don’t think that what the gun companies are doing is right. The recent Colorado grocery store shooter used a “pistol” that fires .223 and has a stock. That’s just a sick way for gun companies to sell more automatic rifles to people who want to get around checks. Google an image of what was used (Ruger AR 556 pistol) and you’ll see what I’m talking about... it ain’t a pistol.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

 

[Old Bookaroo]

"[FONT=&quot]Some focus on the prefatory phrase 'a well regulated militia' and insist the 2A protects a collective right of the states to form armed militias. That’s quite a stretch considering the other nine amendments specifically focus on individual rights."
That line of reason cuts both ways. The other nine amendments don't have a "prefatory phrase." "Arms" could easily have been included in the First Amendment - but they weren't.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo[/FONT]

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

W

Right. But it doesn’t say, “the right of any and all of the people to keep and bear any and all arms (even those modified to bend rules) at a reasonable cost shall not be infringed.”

Should C4, frag and incendiary grenades, RPGs, ICBMs, etc. be easily accessible? I’m glad the government banned bump stocks. In my opinion, if you want a Class 3, you should put on your big boy pants with your big boy wallet and get approved by BAFTE (aka “the Fun Police”)... I don’t think you should be allowed to attach a cheap piece of plastic to an automatic rifle to make it act like a full auto. I also don’t think that what the gun companies are doing is right. The recent Colorado grocery store shooter used a “pistol” that fires .223 and has a stock. That’s just a sick way for gun companies to sell more automatic rifles to people who want to get around checks. Google an image of what was used (Ruger AR 556 pistol) and you’ll see what I’m talking about... it ain’t a pistol.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

Come on give me a break, that argument has never worked, last I looked "C4, frag and incendiary grenades, RPGs, ICBMs" are not firearms. SCOTUS ruled, saw off shotguns are not covered by 2nd amendment because it is not a normal firearm used by the military. AR 15, AK47 pistols and AR556 all fall under firearms that fall under ordinary military equipment

"U.S. Supreme Court (1997): In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “contribute to the common defense.” Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment. "

Automatic firearms are already illegal with out class 3 license, Colorado shooter did not use an automatic weapon, it was a Ruger AR 556, a semi automatic pistol, it fires one bullet each time trigger is pulled, one pull of trigger, 1 bullet fired and yes it is a pistol and in fact is classified as such by the ATF. (Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms)

Ruger AR-556 pistol is designed with a 10.5-inch barrel and is sold with a stabilizing brace, as opposed to a stock (which would cause the AR-556 to be classified as a short-barreled rifle under the National Firearms Act of 1934)

 

[Kantuckkeean]

My point was that times and technology have greatly changed since the writing of the BOR and that laws should keep up with those changes.

The military uses many fully automatic weapons and explosive devices as “ordinary military equipment.” Does that mean the right of any and all of the people to keep and bear any and all of that ordinary military equipment shall not be infringed? I think not.

I didn’t say that the Colorado loser used a Class 3 firearm. Class 3 are rarely used for crimes because they’re expensive and highly regulated. Bump stocks effectively turned semi-automatic rifles into full auto to skirt the regulations, so I was just saying that I’m glad they banned them. Otherwise, a lot of wack jobs would be strapping a cheap piece of plastic to their inexpensive semi-automatic firearm, leading to even greater fatalities (think Las Vegas). Bump stock sales soared after that tragedy. NRA didn’t like the ban because they wanted amnesty for bump stocks purchased prior to the ban.

Come on, give me a break... Did you look at what the Colorado loser used? Just because they call it a stabilizing brace rather than a stock, and they make the barrel 1mm or 1.5” less than 12” doesn’t make it a pistol. Sure, by definition it may be deemed a pistol, but it’s just another modified semi-automatic rifle.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

 

[Tesorodeoro]

My point was that times and technology have greatly changed since the writing of the BOR and that laws should keep up with those changes.

The military uses many fully automatic weapons and explosive devices as “ordinary military equipment.” Does that mean the right of any and all of the people to keep and bear any and all of that ordinary military equipment shall not be infringed? I think not.

I didn’t say that the Colorado loser used a Class 3 firearm. Class 3 are rarely used for crimes because they’re expensive and highly regulated. Bump stocks effectively turned semi-automatic rifles into full auto to skirt the regulations so I was just saying that I’m glad they banned them. Otherwise, a lot of wack jobs would be strapping a cheap piece of plastic to their semi-automatic firearm, leading to even greater fatalities (think Las Vegas).

Give me a break... Just because they call it a stabilizing brace rather than a stock, and they make the barrel 1mm or 1.5” less than 12” doesn’t make it a pistol. Sure, by definition it may be deemed a pistol, but it’s just another modified semi-automatic rifle.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

“ The recent Colorado grocery store shooter used a “pistol” that fires .223 and has a stock. That’s just a sick way for gun companies to sell more automatic rifles to people who want to get around checks.”

And you are under the impression that buying an AR-15 pistol “gets around checks” when compared to buying an AR-15 rifle?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

My point was that times and technology have greatly changed since the writing of the BOR and that laws should keep up with those changes.

The military uses many fully automatic weapons and explosive devices as “ordinary military equipment.” Does that mean the right of any and all of the people to keep and bear any and all of that ordinary military equipment shall not be infringed? I think not.

Give me a break... Just because they call it a stabilizing brace rather than a stock, and they make the barrel 1mm or 1.5” less that 12” doesn’t make it a pistol. Sure, by definition it may be deemed a pistol, but it’s just another modified semi-automatic rifle.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

We the people have the right to keep and bear arms, a right our Constitution forbids the government to infringe on. There was no internet at time 1st amendment was written, so does that mean free speech or freedom of the press does not apply to internet, does not apply to Television or radio, after all they were not invented. The ATF considers the AR-556 a pistol.

Are you aware that at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment there was a 20 shot repeating rifle in use called the Girandoni air rifle that fired a .46 and .51 caliber bullet with a range of 125 to 150 yards?

 

[Kantuckkeean]

“ The recent Colorado grocery store shooter used a “pistol” that fires .223 and has a stock. That’s just a sick way for gun companies to sell more automatic rifles to people who want to get around checks.”

And you are under the impression that buying an AR-15 pistol “gets around checks” when compared to buying an AR-15 rifle?

I’m sorry. I wasn’t entirely clear there. First, to answer your question... Tricky question that goes back to the definition of “assault weapon” and such. My thoughts: AR-15s in many instances can be acquired at age 18 as a rifle purchase, whereas pistols may not purchased until age 21. However if AR15 rifles become defined as assault weapons, then having modified versions that fit the definition of a pistol would be a sneaky way to preemptively get around additional regulations (local, state, or what-have-you)... “It’s a pistol, not an assault weapon.” As for the Colorado loser’s “pistol”: Putting a “stabilizing brace” on a long barrel “pistol” gets around the NFA regulations concerning short barrel rifles.

Edit: And to be abundantly clear... I’m not up to date on every local, state, and federal law regarding firearms. I haven’t made a purchase in many years and I’ve never sold a firearm, so I may be off in something that I said.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

 

[Tesorodeoro]

I believe there is a background check triggered either way.
I own pistols and rifles. I’d like to own something in between.

Modifying a rifle to a pistol configuration is currently illegal unless your a licensed gun manufacturer.
People have been modifying pistols with shoulder braces for a very long time.


This shoulder brace semantics is just another clever trick the opposition is using to try and restrict legal ownership. I remember when handguns were the focus...”Saturday Night Specials”...revolvers and pistols that were just too small and not expensive enough for the opposition.

“Assault weapon” is just another effective buzz word similar to “Saturday Night Special”.
The most recent popular buzz word is “Ghost gun”.

This focus on enacting laws to affect unlawful behavior doesn’t seem to be effective.

Just my opinion.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

"Some focus on the prefatory phrase 'a well regulated militia' and insist the 2A protects a collective right of the states to form armed militias. That’s quite a stretch considering the other nine amendments specifically focus on individual rights."
That line of reason cuts both ways. The other nine amendments don't have a "prefatory phrase." "Arms" could easily have been included in the First Amendment - but they weren't.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

I would counter that it is implied in the Constitution itself. Right in the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

To quote Robert A. Heinlein: "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

Liberty is not given. It is taken and held.

Further, nowhere in Section 8 does it give Congress the authority to restrict firearms. Their duties are clearly defined and that is not among the list. It can "call forth the Militia"; but this was at a time there was to be no standing Army.

 

[releventchair]

I’m sorry. I wasn’t entirely clear there. First, to answer your question... Tricky question that goes back to the definition of “assault weapon” and such. My thoughts: AR-15s in many instances can be acquired at age 18 as a rifle purchase, whereas pistols may not purchased until age 21. However if AR15 rifles become defined as assault weapons, then having modified versions that fit the definition of a pistol would be a sneaky way to preemptively get around additional regulations (local, state, or what-have-you)... “It’s a pistol, not an assault weapon.” As for the Colorado loser’s “pistol”: Putting a “stabilizing brace” on a long barrel “pistol” gets around the NFA regulations concerning short barrel rifles.

Edit: And to be abundantly clear... I’m not up to date on every local, state, and federal law regarding firearms. I haven’t made a purchase in many years and I’ve never sold a firearm, so I may be off in something that I said.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

Calling a gun an assaults weapon is half the problem. Any gun can be used in an assault.
For that , I dismiss any hand wringing over definitions. More so by anti gun sentiments definitions.

A pistol to get around rifle laws? Egads. Pistols are far more highly regulated than rifles.
No sense in getting excited about a stock being added to a pistol when a pistol is harder to legally acquire than a rifle. Is there?
You're converting a more restricted intem into a less restricted item. By design anyways.
I'm sure there are jurisdictions frowning on adding a stock to a pistol. As well as any to all guns.