[Taltarzac725]

https://www.amazon.com/TIME-LIFE-His.../dp/1683304314

The weapons Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, and others considered as "arms" are far different from the arms of 2022.

[Rainger99]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

https://www.amazon.com/TIME-LIFE-His.../dp/1683304314

The weapons Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, and others considered as "arms" are far different from the arms of 2022.

I also believe their definition of the press and speech was far different from the means of communication in 2022.

[LAFwUs]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Amazon.com

The weapons Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, and others considered as "arms" are far different from the arms of 2022.

They also had different: indoor plumbing, cars, airplanes, golf courses, 65" TV's, new balance tennis shoes, soft serve ice-cream, amazon prime deals and waaaay different xfinity back then! Yep, thanks to the British Crown's "fake news" censorship zar at the time, they couldn't even use the internet to drop their passive aggressive, pseudo woke, virtue signaling post....

[justjim]

“Arms” were definitely different then than now. Careful this could quickly get political.

[manaboutown]

So was their attire. Can anyone imagine George Washington or Thomas Jefferson in a wife beater shirt with a crass logo on it, wearing baggy shorts and Nike sneakers with no socks (hosiery) topped off with a baseball cap worn backwards? Maybe having some piercings, multiple earrings and facial tattoos?

[MartinSE]

The fact that there was so much change from then to now is why they included the ability to amend the constitution - foresight.

Sadly at this point, amending the constitution is almost impossible - at least expecting the politicians to do it. So, if there is something we feel needs to be updated WE have to do it ourselves which is also an option.

So, what did they mean by "arms", I firmly believe they meant arms sufficient to protect the government from loyalists. And the reason they chose that route was because they could not afford (and did not want) a standing army. That too has changed. So, it could be argued, if that was the primary reason, that the justification no longer exists.

[keepsake]

And none of the founding father or any founders, lived in Florida in the summer.

[Reiver]

The Militia Act of 1792 required every able bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 to own the exact same gun as was used by the continental army.
Whatever they are using now, I want one.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Reiver

The Militia Act of 1792 required every able bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 to own the exact same gun as was used by the continental army.
Whatever they are using now, I want one.

Yes, but why? Could be because they did not want to pay for a standing army to protect the fledgling government from the loyalists. That is not an issue today, we have a standing army, it costs us about $1T/year - maybe they had a better idea...

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Amazon.com

The weapons Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, and others considered as "arms" are far different from the arms of 2022.

Well they did not have to rely on bows and arrows, slingshots, clubs and peashooters. They had cannon, mortar and howitzers. Not only was it lethal, it was brutal.

Get To Know The Brutal Artillery Of The Revolutionary War | The Drive

[rjm1cc]

That the citizens would have access to the same type of weapons as the King's soldiers had so they could protect themselves.
As the King gets better weapons then they should get better weapons.

[ThirdOfFive]

"If heaven were open only to those who agreed on politics, I imagine it would be largely unoccupied."

Some medieval wag once said that if he had the choice between heaven and hell, he'd choose hell. In his opinion hell would be far more interesting, being populated with popes, kings, businessmen, writers, artists, etc. Heaven, on the other hand, had little to offer but beggars and lepers.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Reiver

The Militia Act of 1792 required every able bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 to own the exact same gun as was used by the continental army.
Whatever they are using now, I want one.

That's not exactly true. You should read up on your history, before misquoting and misleading the masses.

[Rainger99]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

That's not exactly true. You should read up on your history, before misquoting and misleading the masses.

That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter,How to be armed and accoutred. provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by rjm1cc

That the citizens would have access to the same type of weapons as the King's soldiers had so they could protect themselves.
As the King gets better weapons then they should get better weapons.

Well, except the war with the king was over. Maybe they feared he might come back, but from my reading it seemed it was more about loyalists. Also, the south had a thing that they were afraid if guns were not allowed their slaves would revolt or run away, so to insure the South would sign on they promised to put an amendment for allowing guns for "militia" to control the slaves.