So, guys, what you are saying is that there was no United States army which was paid a salary to be soldiers, but each individual state HAD a standing army which was paid?

Or did they just have voluntary militia who used their own weapons?

(Sorry to sound ignorant but there's not a great deal of US history taught in UK schools, basically because compared to us you don't have much. :lol: )

 

don't get cocky ya blimey Brit

and no, the militia wasn't paid, it was all voluntary. US did not get a standing army until after the war of 1812 if I remember correctly

 

Just to return to my earlier point for a moment, it's interesting to me that all these theories are being put forward as to the intent of the 2nd Amendment, but NONE of them have the benefit of a definitive Supreme Court determination. The last time the Supreme Court weighed in on the subject, it upheld the right of the states, and even the federal government, to regulate firearms.

 

Here we go again! Stupid people shouldn't have guns but the rest of you have the right to wear sleeveless attire. :roll: I'm starting to wonder how many would pass the stupid test! It says the right to BEAR ARMS! It's your constitution, my American friends. Please try a little harder.

Perhaps this would be a more sensible approach?

 

That varied by state. (The following is out of memory, so the details may be wrong.) Massachusetts had a military paid for by state taxes. Virginia had a completely unpaid militia. Pennsylvania paid its officers, but most of the men were unpaid. The plethora of different organizations is one thing which promoted the growth of the federal army. Of course, the military was never paid very much.

 

While I understand the states part to be correct, I thought the federal part was limited to regulating the trade in firearms. So they can't make automatic weapons illegal to own, but they can make automatic weapons illegal to sell. (At least across state lines. Regulating weapons sales within states still lacks precedent as far as I know.)

 

First I'll apologize for an untimely response. But a funny thing happened on my way to the forum. I tried to log on and couldn't. Then I tired to set up a new account with my same email address and couldn't do that either. Then I emailed the adminstrators to see what I was doing wrong and got no response. So then I tried setting up a new email account and a new nickname and got in. I've already admitted I'm technologically impaired so if anyone can explain this strangeness to me I'd be greatful.
Second I have to apologize to trumpet, because I critized him for painting with broad strokes and then apparently picked up the same brush when I quoted him as saying guns=bad no guns=good when what he actually wrote was guns=good no guns=not so bad. Sorry for the mis-quote.
Now to respond to his question. I can show evidence of our founding fathers being armed through the paintings of the revolutionary periods and shortly there after. Guns tucked into waste bands of our founding fathers and actually present in the senate and house chambers still exist.
The problem is that does not necessarily prove their intent for private ownership. But what I do think it demonstrates is even in this country's infancy private ownership of guns was taken for granted and with that already in the back of their minds, and the need for malitias in the front of their minds they managed to garble the second admendment.
Now how does that translate to the present. Well first guns are a part of our national hereitage, not just because of revolutionaries, fronteersmen, mountain men, cowboys (actually a myth) and settlers, but because when we set up our democracy our founding fathers believed "the greatest safe guard of democracy is a well armed populace," and "those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for temporary safeguards neither deserve liberty nor will they long hold it. Those are as true today as they were when the first 10 admemdments were ratified.
More to the point, as many have already pointed up gun's are not really the problem, they are a symptom of greater social ills particulary violence. There was as example in one of the posts, "I hate violence except in video games. Sorry can't be. Violence real or imagined is still violence. A better example might be foreign exchange students who come to this country (especially from Germany)and refuse to play football even if they were great soccer players back at home. The reason is even if soccer is a very rough game with no pads or helmet the violent collisions are unintentional while the violence in our form of football is intentional.
With that mind set banning guns with out changing our beliefs would have the same affect as banning drugs. It would also put those in favor of it in direct confict with people like me who believes the governmet (which I neither respect nor believe) can take my gun away when they pry it out of my cold dead hand.
Lastly partner come on look at the example you used to start this discussion. The guy was willing to kill defensless children and it was a copy cat crime at that, because just a few days before some other sick fuck did nearly the same thing in colorado. No laws could have prevented that. As an example the first time I remember hearing of a crime like this I was just a kid and a guy got into a nursing school dormotory and killed eight nursing students with a knife. When asked years later on a bootleg prison video why he had done it his response was "It just wasn't their day." Just knowing those kind of people exist is enough to make me believe I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it.
Now trumpet (or anyone else) be a sport and help the technologically impaired. How do you get the quote box to appear in your response?
PS Some of this may make me sound like a card carring member of the NRA. Not so. Tore up my membership and sent it back to them decades ago when it became apparent to me they were much more interested in promoting the far right, ultra conservative Republican agenda then they were in protecting my right to own guns.

 

shit. did it again. What trumpet wrote was guns=bad, no guns=not so bad.

 

If you think banning guns will help with the violence than you must also think when we banned drugs everyone quite using them. If you ban guns the only ones giving them up would be law abiding citizens.

Also a loaded gun lying on a table will never kill anyone. some pissed off husband with a baseball bat will. so how about we ban baseball bats, cars, kitchen knives, heavy objects, bleach, matches, ..... get my point.!!!!!

 

It will kill a child who finds it there and thinks it is a fun toy.

 

I went and looked it up. It was actually a federal law banning the possession of sawed-off shotguns. That law was upheld and is still on the books. The court has been silent on state regulation of firearms, evidently, contrary to what I said.

Interesting that the Supreme Court never agreed to hear a case regarding the Brady Bill, a federal law. I assume that lower courts have upheld it, although by any reasonable definition it is an infringement on the so-called right to bear arms.

 

Thanks for the information.

 

why would i get rid of my guns??? i have a legal gun license taht lets me get rifels and semi-automatic handguns.... your a moron bro im just saying even if they tryed 2 ban guns... it wouldnt happen ... and yes i said that it would violate the constitution.... and the thing that prevents that is the judicial review which says ''allows the court to decide whether the laws or government action goes againsed the constitution...if the supreme court decides that a bill is unconstitutional the bill becomes void and can no longer be enforced''

 

Where in my post does it say that stupid shouldn't have guns. What I said is that in the hands of a stupid person guns are dangerous. But nevertheless, they have the right to have them.

 

Guns do not have the capacity to kill on their own!!!!

 

My point is Guns do not have the capacity to kill on their own!!!!

 

My point is Guns do not have the capacity to kill on their own!!!!

 

Neither do nuclear weapons.

 

Exactly.

 

The Port Authur massacre in this country bought about a gun amnesty where guns were handed in and owners compensated.Illegal guns however still stayed in the community,but rarelly does Australiia have a mass shooting as the U.S doese.It also did not stop licensed gun owner Ivan Mallat from shooting backpackers.I'm just glad I live in this country where I don't have to feel the need to protect myself with a gun.

P.S Martin Bryant was also a legalised gun owner.