Assault weapons were not around when the bill of rights was written....

[mongoosesnipe]

I am so sick of the gun grabbers using the excuse that semi automatics and assault weapons did not exist at the time of the ratification of the bill of rights

My issue with the argument is that it is a flawed argument with no basis as it is true that when the bill of rights was drafted the pinnacle of gun technology was the muzzle loading rifle (though the breach loading ferguson existed there were very few of them s thy barely count...) but what they fail to mention in their argument is that though people only has muskets and muzzle loading rifles that was all the military was armed with as well which essentially puts the people and their government on equal standing weapon wise so based on their argument the second amendment says that the people should be on equal standing with the government so where the hell is my apache helicopter I feel like I could have a hell of a good time playing with a 30 mike mike chain gun

Now don't get me wrong i believe in gun control i use both hand and I hit my target... But in all seriousness do i think the mentally ill and felons should have guns... No, but there already laws in place that are suppose to prevent that we need to enforce the law we have before we add more with the illusions that criminals fallow the rules we need a better mental health system more than we need another gun law

And I am plenty ok with the idea of arming school staff I find imagines like this comforting

Say what you want about Israel's politics I like the way they handle their personal security

[Fillar]

Actually, many back then had more able rifles than the military. The great Kentucky flintlock-hunting rifle was more accurate than any known previous firearm. It was rifled and used a form of bullet over the traditional ball. The Red Coats would avoid fights instead of going up against the Kentucky (& some Tennessee) Frontiersman.

For those using the statement “that our Founding Fathers never intended for the masses to have military style weapons”, are absolutely false as many had better arms than the colonial military.

[Rambozo]

It has no basis, because military arms have historically been particularly relevant to the legal interpretation of the 2nd amendment. In other words, the courts have traditionally held that the second amendment applies specifically to military arms. It wasn't until recently that the interpretation was broadened beyond that.

[mongoosesnipe]

Actually, many back then had more able rifles than the military. The great Kentucky flintlock-hunting rifle was more accurate than any known previous firearm. It was rifled and used a form of bullet over the traditional ball. The Red Coats would avoid fights instead of going up against the Kentucky (& some Tennessee) Frontiersman.

For those using the statement “that our Founding Fathers never intended for the masses to have military style weapons”, are absolutely false as many had better arms than the colonial military.

The reasons that the musket was used over rifles by the regular army was because it was cheaper and more robust, many malitia used their hunting rifles and became the first snipers to be prominent in war shooting officers before the infantry was even positioned for volley fire the officers avoided such fights as the were primary targets and in the era the musket was superior to the rifle when used in volley virtually useless in the hands of a loan solider also rifles of the era came with their own bullet mold as every rifle was built by hand the the bores of said rifles varied quite a bit from gun to gun so it was not a practical military arm from a logistics standpoint until the minie ball was developed in 1848 similarly the high power hunting rifles most of use have are for all intensive purposes sniper rifles which far exceeded the accuracy and range of a rack grade m4 but from a volume of fire stand point the m4 is a more practical military weapon for intermediate range similar to the comparison of a Brown Bess to a Kentucky rifle the Bess could be fired faster and many more times then the kentucky before it became fouled beyond use rifling had been around for about 250 years prior to the American revolution it just was not a practical weapon for large military's of the time

[Fillar]

The reasons that the musket was used over rifles by the regular army was because it was cheaper and more robust, many malitia used their hunting rifles and became the first snipers to be prominent in war shooting officers before the infantry was even positioned for volley fire the officers avoided such fights as the were primary targets and in the era the musket was superior to the rifle when used in volley virtually useless in the hands of a loan solider also rifles of the era came with their own bullet mold as every rifle was built by hand the the bores of said rifles varied quite a bit from gun to gun so it was not a practical military arm from a logistics standpoint until the minie ball was developed in 1848 similarly the high power hunting rifles most of use have are for all intensive purposes sniper rifles which far exceeded the accuracy and range of a rack grade m4 but from a volume of fire stand point the m4 is a more practical military weapon for intermediate range similar to the comparison of a Brown Bess to a Kentucky rifle the Bess could be fired faster and many more times then the kentucky before it became fouled beyond use rifling had been around for about 250 years prior to the American revolution it just was not a practical weapon for large military's of the time

That may be the longest sentence I've ever seen.

[Nukes]

Not yet. He's not done. There's no period. There must be more coming. :-)

[parallax]

[Taylormade]

Not yet. He's not done. There's no period. There must be more coming. :-)

You beat me to it, LOL

[mongoosesnipe]

i have said it before and i will say it again punctuation is for the weak

[KentuckyBuddha]

That may be the longest sentence I've ever seen.

Have you ever read Faulkner? : D


We Southern writers like cumulative sentences. If I have not said it before, I invite Strunk and White to make a though fruitless attempt at intra-personal meiotic procreation. Even if I have...I still do. Just sayin'.

[Opus Dei]

am so sick of the gun grabbers using the excuse that semi automatics and assault weapons did not exist at the time of the ratification of the bill of rights

Well, computers and smartphones weren't contemporaneous, either. Ask them if by their logic the 1A applies to speech via these devices.

[mongoosesnipe]

If they can use the first amendment to publish gun owners addresses via the internet the surely the second amendment can be applied to assault weapon and semi automatics

[Grendel-Gene]

its really not very complicated; you have an ever expanding out of control federal government. In order for it to thrive it must take an ever increasing share of what we, the productive class produce to give to the parasites who keep voting them power. This is unsustainable and at some point there must be a revolt... and when that happens, they dont want us armed. its that simple.

so all this debate over" muskets" or hunting or the " real" intent of the framers is just obamacrap. wake up and smell the barack!!! they want us enslaved and submissive..... like cattle.
Well i , for one, will not go quietely.

[Tech09]

Amazing how the USA stated for years that Communism was unjust to the people yet here we are today headed right for it

[bow shot]

They probably never thought electronic media would happen, so that's not protected under the 1st.

Since they are not hypocrates, and the militia in their mind is the army, I guess they intende to get rid of the airforce and all modern weaponry.

Arrogant retards. They think the Founders were as nearsighted and stupid as they are, and consider themselves visionaries.

[Steyr94]

Well, computers and smartphones weren't contemporaneous, either. Ask them if by their logic the 1A applies to speech via these devices.

Or their beloved *cough* communist news networks