Sad sign of the times

[DuctTape]

Re: private ships with cannons. At the time privateers were issued letters of marque (as permitted in the Constitution) to act on behalf of the us govt to attack and seize foreign ships which otherwise would be considered piracy under maritime law. The letters of marque legitimized the privateers as de facto navy ships. IIRC, current international maritime law prohibits issuance of letters of marque in the current times.

[RememberSchiff]

14 minutes ago, David CO said:

If that is the case, then we need to arm teachers. You can't expect people to rely on the police for their protection if the police are going to stay outside the building and wait for shooter to run out of ammunition.

Compare to the quick, heroic reaction of the Capitol Police detail at that GOP baseball practice where Congressman Scalise was shot.

[HelpfulTracks]

Just now, DuctTape said:

Re: private ships with cannons. At the time privateers were issued letters of marque (as permitted in the Constitution) to act on behalf of the us govt to attack and seize foreign ships which otherwise would be considered piracy under maritime law. The letters of marque legitimized the privateers as de facto navy ships. IIRC, current international maritime law prohibits issuance of letters of marque in the current times.

In addition, the initial field pieces used by Continental Army during the revolution were from the frontier militia.  The militia was supplied from numerous sources, the British, companies vested in the business of the frontier,  wealthy citizenry with a stake and even collective funds from the citizenry. The British eventually outlawed such guns, but not until there were significant tensions in the colonies.  But before that, there was no law preventing their manufacture or purchase by militia or the civilians that made them up.

Sabres were not uncommon among militia officers, who were often chosen as officers because of the financial standing in the community (and their ability to spend their own money on supplies for the militia).  Bayonets were not common, but certainly not outlawed. Most weapons the militia had were the personal weapons of those that served, and not made to handle bayonets (those some had them modified later) nor were bayonet used much in the style of fighting my militia.  Bayonet charges (along with canon and cavalry) were a major reason militia lines often broken in the face of British regulars. The militia was just not trained or equipped to deal with those tactics.  That too changed to some degree as the war continued.

[David CO]

14 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

Re: private ships with cannons. At the time privateers were issued letters of marque (as permitted in the Constitution) to act on behalf of the us govt to attack and seize foreign ships which otherwise would be considered piracy under maritime law. The letters of marque legitimized the privateers as de facto navy ships. IIRC, current international maritime law prohibits issuance of letters of marque in the current times.

The United States is not a signatory to that "law".  

[HelpfulTracks]

22 minutes ago, David CO said:

The United States is not a signatory to that "law".  

I am not sure what law you refer, but the Continental Congress absolutely issued Letters of Marque to attack British ships. In fact, they did so before they even wrote the Declaration of Independence. Which is why British Captains considered any ship under Continental Flag as a pirate and subject to the worst forms of treatment, including hanging, conscription or what amounted to a death sentence on British prison ships. The British did not treat POW's well in many cases, but sailors were often treated worse because of them being considered pirates due to their Letters of Marque.

Edited February 23, 2018 by HelpfulTracks

[DuctTape]

David might have been referring to current maritime law which I was not sure if I remembered correctly. If so, thank you David for the clarification.

[David CO]

19 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

sI am not sure what law you refer, but the Continental Congress absolutely issued Letters of Marque to attack British ships. In fact, they did so before they even wrote the Declaration of Independence. Which is why British Captains considered any ship under Continental Flag as a pirate and subject to the worst forms of treatment, including hanging, conscription or what amounted to a death sentence on British prison ships. The British did not treat POW's well in many cases, but sailors were often treated worse because of them being considered pirates due to their Letters of Marque.

 

16 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

David might have been referring to current maritime law which I was not sure if I remembered correctly. If so, thank you David for the clarification.

The 1856 Paris Declaration outlawed the issue of Letters of Marque and Reprisal. The United States refused to sign it because it contradicts the U. S. Constitution. Yet, the United States has not issued any Letters of Marque and Reprisal since the Paris Declaration.

The Confederate States of America did issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal during the Civil War. The United States did not.

I am not up on current maritime law. It is my understanding that the United States still holds to the position that it cannot sign a treaty that contradicts the U. S. Constitution.

Edited February 23, 2018 by David CO

[Col. Flagg]

1 hour ago, blw2 said:

So, how is it that the technology has somehow caused this to start happening now?

From my perspective, it is not the technology that is causing these shootings. Rather the technology is making the body count higher than it would be if the citizenry were allowed their arms, BUT those arms were not military-grade.

I've got my 12- and 20-gauge, a replica 50-cal muzzleloader and a model 700 CDL bolt action. All used for hunting and sport (clays/target). NONE are the type of weapon to cause mass carnage. Such weapons are simply not needed by the citizenry. 

Don't own a handgun. My Gen-X 40# compound will take any intruder down. 

[HelpfulTracks]

23 hours ago, Col. Flagg said:

I support the 2nd amendment and the rights therein. However, I believe the Founding Fathers would not have meant this right extends to such weaponry as we have now. I own firearms. I own firearms that have a practical purpose such as hunting or defending my family/property. I do NOT own firearms like an AR-15, sniper rifle or anything like that because I believe they have a military purpose.

I think if the Founding Fathers were alive today they would be appalled at the extremes on both sides of this debate. We do need arms and should have them. We don't need arms that can take out a company of citizens in less than 2 minutes.

 

If we want to curtail the Second Amendment based on what the framers could not have envisioned, then what do we do about the First Amendment?

Firearms of today would at least be recognizable. Many advances already existed, though not widespread, existed, like cartridges, multi-shot weapons, rifled barrels.  Even telescopic sites were being experimented with at the time. 

Free speech and press, on the other hand, would look alien to them. Telephones, television, cell phones, internet for example. It took 6-8 weeks for a message to go from London to New York, we can fly in a few hours, and have a video conference that is instantaneous.

I think it would have been far easier to envision where our firearms would be today than where our communication is now.  And these guys were pretty visionary, to say the least.

I am also not sure what you mean by firearms "like an AR-15 or sniper rifle."

The media and politicians have adulterated terminology of weapons to suit political purposes. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The definitions being used to call it an assault weapon also cover entire sets of weapons that many people are in support of maintaining.  When those terms become misused it muddies the debate and laws get passed that are too broad or ineffective.

 

[Col. Flagg]

1 minute ago, HelpfulTracks said:

If we want to curtail the Second Amendment based on what the framers could not have envisioned, then what do we do about the First Amendment?

As others have noted, while have free speech, we cannot simply say anything we want whenever we want. I am assuming the same would apply for firearms. We can have firearms but not ANY firearm we want.

[David CO]

The framers did envision the need for change. That's why they included a process by which the Constitution can be amended. My objection isn't to change. My objection is to those who would wish to change the Constitution without going through the amendment process.

[HelpfulTracks]

41 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

As others have noted, while have free speech, we cannot simply say anything we want whenever we want. I am assuming the same would apply for firearms. We can have firearms but not ANY firearm we want.

You are correct, there are restrictions on free speech, just as restrictions exist on weapons. And I am not opposed to well thought out and effective measures.

My point is simply that saying we need change in laws because the framers could not have foreseen the future is a slippery slope and poor argument that starts us down the path of shredding the Constitution.

[Col. Flagg]

Just now, HelpfulTracks said:

My point is simply that saying we need change in laws because the framers could not have foreseen the future is a slippery slope and poor argument that starts us down the path of shredding the Constitution.

Quite the opposite. We should ALWAYS question the applicability of the Constitution. It is the only way to test our laws. We do this daily was we consult case law, codes and the Constitution. Do our laws fit within the framework? Do they violate our basic rights? I don't see questioning the Constitution -- or even discussing change to it -- as a step down the path of "shredding" it. Rather, I see it as our duty to continue to question all laws against that framework. And if change *is* needed, we operate within the process laid out in the Constitution to change it.

I'd love to see Executive Orders and judicial legislating be a thing of the past. Courts don't belong making policy like they do now, and the Executive does not belong making laws like they do now.

[HelpfulTracks]

35 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

Quite the opposite. We should ALWAYS question the applicability of the Constitution. It is the only way to test our laws. We do this daily was we consult case law, codes and the Constitution. Do our laws fit within the framework? Do they violate our basic rights? I don't see questioning the Constitution -- or even discussing change to it -- as a step down the path of "shredding" it. Rather, I see it as our duty to continue to question all laws against that framework. And if change *is* needed, we operate within the process laid out in the Constitution to change it.

I'd love to see Executive Orders and judicial legislating be a thing of the past. Courts don't belong making policy like they do now, and the Executive does not belong making laws like they do now.

Okay. cool. You are totally missing my point, so I will not waste any more of either of our time and move along. 

[Col. Flagg]

2 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Okay. cool. You are totally missing my point, so I will not waste any more of either of our time and move along. 

Enlighten me. What's the argument you'd make then.