CDZ Another shot heard round the world.

[Winston]

Both of these weapons are Ruger 10/22 semi automatic weapons. They are not assault weapons.

A M-16 is an Assault weapon, an AR-15 is a hunting rifle. Shame some people on this site never graduated from a real school, instead of the propaganda public school.

I think it is time to stop pussy footing around.

The 2nd Amendment was not written to secure the people's right to keep and bear HUNTING rifles. It was not written to secure the people's right to have guns for sport or for collecting.

The 2nd Amendment was written to secure our right AND OUR ABILITY to have the weapons necessary to DEFEND ourselves and our freedoms MILITARILY - even against our own government - should it ever again be necessary for us to do so.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - Declaration of Independence

Can you imagine the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution and their reactions to any King or even their own Government - trying to dictate to them what weapons they could and could not have to DEFEND themselves and their liberties against such tyranny?

Those bayonets on the ends of the Kentucky long rifles carried by the minutemen (CIVILIANS) during the revolutionary war were not for DEER HUNTING. The Cannons they used against the king and his men were not for defense against Squirrels.

We all agree (I hope) that there can be limits and regulations - reasonable regulations that the people might "consent" to. However, a RIGHT does not simply get lost or go away when someone CONSENTS to regulation.

The courts are not recognizing the RIGHTS of the people in this case.

The "people" have a 2nd Amendment Constitutional RIGHT to keep and bear weapons of WAR - to defend ourselves against EVEN our own government.

It is time to stop pretending that we don't.

Bayonets were NOT affixed to Kentucky Long Rifles and Cannons were not privately owned.

Cannons were not privately owned.

Might want to research that a bit more.

Look up John Stark of NH

Stealing a cannon from the British does not make them privately owned. Hell Peter Francisco carried one off the battlefield on his back. That still doesn't make them privately owned.

If he stole it from the British, who does it belong to?

Wait a minute, you mean if I am a soldier in the US military and I manage to capture a Howitzer from the enemy, I get to take it home with me?

It belonged to the US military, in Francisco's case, it was the Virginia Miltia's cannon to start with.

 

[Auld Phart]

I think it is time to stop pussy footing around.

The 2nd Amendment was not written to secure the people's right to keep and bear HUNTING rifles. It was not written to secure the people's right to have guns for sport or for collecting.

The 2nd Amendment was written to secure our right AND OUR ABILITY to have the weapons necessary to DEFEND ourselves and our freedoms MILITARILY - even against our own government - should it ever again be necessary for us to do so.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - Declaration of Independence

Can you imagine the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution and their reactions to any King or even their own Government - trying to dictate to them what weapons they could and could not have to DEFEND themselves and their liberties against such tyranny?

Those bayonets on the ends of the Kentucky long rifles carried by the minutemen (CIVILIANS) during the revolutionary war were not for DEER HUNTING. The Cannons they used against the king and his men were not for defense against Squirrels.

We all agree (I hope) that there can be limits and regulations - reasonable regulations that the people might "consent" to. However, a RIGHT does not simply get lost or go away when someone CONSENTS to regulation.

The courts are not recognizing the RIGHTS of the people in this case.

The "people" have a 2nd Amendment Constitutional RIGHT to keep and bear weapons of WAR - to defend ourselves against EVEN our own government.

It is time to stop pretending that we don't.

Bayonets were NOT affixed to Kentucky Long Rifles and Cannons were not privately owned.

Cannons were not privately owned.

Might want to research that a bit more.

Look up John Stark of NH

Stealing a cannon from the British does not make them privately owned. Hell Peter Francisco carried one off the battlefield on his back. That still doesn't make them privately owned.

If he stole it from the British, who does it belong to?

Wait a minute, you mean if I am a soldier in the US military and I manage to capture a Howitzer from the enemy, I get to take it home with me?

It belonged to the US military, in Francisco's case, it was the Virginia Miltia's cannon to start with.

Wait a minute, you mean if I am a soldier in the US military and I manage to capture a Howitzer from the enemy, I get to take it home with me?

Not these days.

In those days, spoils of war

It belonged to the US military, in Francisco's case, it was the Virginia Miltia's cannon to start with.

and who ended up with it?

 

[Winston]

Bayonets were NOT affixed to Kentucky Long Rifles and Cannons were not privately owned.

Cannons were not privately owned.

Might want to research that a bit more.

Look up John Stark of NH

Stealing a cannon from the British does not make them privately owned. Hell Peter Francisco carried one off the battlefield on his back. That still doesn't make them privately owned.

If he stole it from the British, who does it belong to?

Wait a minute, you mean if I am a soldier in the US military and I manage to capture a Howitzer from the enemy, I get to take it home with me?

It belonged to the US military, in Francisco's case, it was the Virginia Miltia's cannon to start with.

Wait a minute, you mean if I am a soldier in the US military and I manage to capture a Howitzer from the enemy, I get to take it home with me?

Not these days.

In those days, spoils of war

It belonged to the US military, in Francisco's case, it was the Virginia Miltia's cannon to start with.

and who ended up with it?

Old Molly? It is with the New Boston Artillery Company, where it has pretty much always been. It was under the care of the Old Militia until 1851. Then the city of New Boston kept it hidden. Really not sure how you can any implication of private ownership. Hell, the government even asked for the cannon during the Civil War.

 

[Chuz Life]

We will save more lives by banning guns than banning Muslims

Care to explain the why Chicago (a city with the strongest gun restrictions in the country) has one of the highest MURDER rates in the country?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Oh....oh...me....me

I can explain

They have one of the highest murder rates because they have guns readily accessible in nearby red state Indiana. Can you explain why Red State Louisiana with lax gun laws has such a high murder rate?

Can you provide a source that proves conclusively that ever gun used in a Chicago murder came from Indiana?

Also, think about what you just claimed.

The ban in Chicago doesn't work because Criminals can get them anyway either in a place where they are legal or from a source where they are smuggled in illegally.

It's hilarious how those who think the same tactics used in the war on recreational drugs will work on a war on guns. Imagine if there were a Constitutional amendment protecting the right to smoke weed.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Auld Phart]

Might want to research that a bit more.

Look up John Stark of NH

Stealing a cannon from the British does not make them privately owned. Hell Peter Francisco carried one off the battlefield on his back. That still doesn't make them privately owned.

If he stole it from the British, who does it belong to?

Wait a minute, you mean if I am a soldier in the US military and I manage to capture a Howitzer from the enemy, I get to take it home with me?

It belonged to the US military, in Francisco's case, it was the Virginia Miltia's cannon to start with.

Wait a minute, you mean if I am a soldier in the US military and I manage to capture a Howitzer from the enemy, I get to take it home with me?

Not these days.

In those days, spoils of war

It belonged to the US military, in Francisco's case, it was the Virginia Miltia's cannon to start with.

and who ended up with it?

Old Molly? It is with the New Boston Artillery Company, where it has pretty much always been. It was under the care of the Old Militia until 1851. Then the city of New Boston kept it hidden. Really not sure how you can any implication of private ownership. Hell, the government even asked for the cannon during the Civil War.

When he carried it off the battlefield, who did it belong to?

 

[rightwinger]

We will save more lives by banning guns than banning Muslims

Care to explain the why Chicago (a city with the strongest gun restrictions in the country) has one of the highest MURDER rates in the country?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Oh....oh...me....me

I can explain

They have one of the highest murder rates because they have guns readily accessible in nearby red state Indiana. Can you explain why Red State Louisiana with lax gun laws has such a high murder rate?

Can you provide a source that proves conclusively that ever gun used in a Chicago murder came from Indiana?

Also, think about what you just claimed.

The ban in Chicago doesn't work because Criminals can get them anyway either in a place where they are legal or from a source where they are smuggled in illegally.

It's hilarious how those who think the same tactics used in the war on recreational drugs will work on a war on guns. Imagine if there were a Constitutional amendment protecting the right to smoke weed.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Then why are the gun bans effective in NYC?

 

[Chuz Life]

Assault weapons not protected by Second Amendment, federal appeals court rules

I'm posting from my phone so I am sorry for not quoting the text.

Let's discuss.

This is the kind of decision that can lead to very bad things.

The Democrat politicians of Marylard are the second dumbest to the Democrat Politicians of the US of A.

I have posted 2 pictures below, which is an assault rifle and which one isn't? I bet you libs will get it wrong, everytime...

View attachment 113702 View attachment 113703

Both of these weapons are Ruger 10/22 semi automatic weapons. They are not assault weapons.

A M-16 is an Assault weapon, an AR-15 is a hunting rifle. Shame some people on this site never graduated from a real school, instead of the propaganda public school.

I think it is time to stop pussy footing around.

The 2nd Amendment was not written to secure the people's right to keep and bear HUNTING rifles. It was not written to secure the people's right to have guns for sport or for collecting.

The 2nd Amendment was written to secure our right AND OUR ABILITY to have the weapons necessary to DEFEND ourselves and our freedoms MILITARILY - even against our own government - should it ever again be necessary for us to do so.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - Declaration of Independence

Can you imagine the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution and their reactions to any King or even their own Government - trying to dictate to them what weapons they could and could not have to DEFEND themselves and their liberties against such tyranny?

Those bayonets on the ends of the Kentucky long rifles carried by the minutemen (CIVILIANS) during the revolutionary war were not for DEER HUNTING. The Cannons they used against the king and his men were not for defense against Squirrels.

We all agree (I hope) that there can be limits and regulations - reasonable regulations that the people might "consent" to. However, a RIGHT does not simply get lost or go away when someone CONSENTS to regulation.

The courts are not recognizing the RIGHTS of the people in this case.

The "people" have a 2nd Amendment Constitutional RIGHT to keep and bear weapons of WAR - to defend ourselves against EVEN our own government.

It is time to stop pretending that we don't.

Bayonets were NOT affixed to Kentucky Long Rifles and Cannons were not privately owned.

Revolutionary War era muskets, with a bayonet. George C. Neumann Collection, Valley Forge National Historic Park.

Socket Bayonet
American
1777-1783
Iron. L 43.9, 36.1 [blade] cm
The George C. Neumann Collection, Valley Forge National Historical Park, VAFO 709


"The Americans were quickly beaten, and the British advanced to Concord where the they believed the local Patriots kept most of their arms (including 2 cannons).




But the Americans, knowing that the British were coming to confiscate their weapons, secretly hauled off their arms stores to safety. A group of militia managed to defeat some of the British force at Concord's North Bridge. Disappointed in what they didn't find, the British began to retreat back to Boston, and that's when the massacre really happened. "

"But the Americans, knowing that the British were coming to confiscate their weapons, secretly hauled off their arms stores to safety. "

Same as it ever was!

 

[Chuz Life]

We will save more lives by banning guns than banning Muslims

Care to explain the why Chicago (a city with the strongest gun restrictions in the country) has one of the highest MURDER rates in the country?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Oh....oh...me....me

I can explain

They have one of the highest murder rates because they have guns readily accessible in nearby red state Indiana. Can you explain why Red State Louisiana with lax gun laws has such a high murder rate?

Can you provide a source that proves conclusively that ever gun used in a Chicago murder came from Indiana?

Also, think about what you just claimed.

The ban in Chicago doesn't work because Criminals can get them anyway either in a place where they are legal or from a source where they are smuggled in illegally.

It's hilarious how those who think the same tactics used in the war on recreational drugs will work on a war on guns. Imagine if there were a Constitutional amendment protecting the right to smoke weed.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Then why are the gun bans effective in NYC?

They clearly aren't.

 

[oldsoul]

Does she have any idea how FEW of those banned weapons are used in gun violence?

Thanks in large part to gun control measures

Those "gun control" measures worked out pretty good in places like San Bernadino, and Miami, didn't they? The problem with "gun control" laws, is that criminals, by definition, don't care!!! All they do is keep those guns out of the hands of the rest of us, so we cannot effectively defend ourselves against them.

Well we live in a gun crazy country that has over 400 million guns floating around and almost all of them unaccounted for. Increasing that number only makes it easier for criminals to get guns.

By your logic, we should get rid of murder laws, since murderers are going to ignore them and kill anyways.

Are you insane? How can you possibly make that leap? Evel Knievel couldn't even do that!

You said bad guys will just ignore laws if they want to.

Yes, I did. There is a very big difference here though. We have a constitutionally protected RIGHT to keep and bear arms, we also have a right to, among other things, life. So, your false comparison falls flat right there. Any law attempting to "legalise" murder would be immediately struck down as unconstitutional. Conversely, it is not unconstitutional to allow people the ability to bear the type of arms necessary for them to protect themselves and their rights. Now, I suppose one could make the argument that assault weapons, and "assault type weapons" (whatever those are), are not necessary. I would counter that with the following:
"Have you ever heard the proverb, don't bring a knife to a gunfight? I assume that you understand what that means. If one is likely to engage in a gunfight, it would be wise to be at least as well armed as your opposition may be. Ask any military strategist and they will tell you that one of the best ways to gain the advantage in a fight is to bring what is called "overwhelming force". Hence why I would choose a full auto over a semi auto every time. It really matters not how the opposition is armed in actuality, I would prefer to not take the chance of being outgunned, if given the choice.

Now, that said, carrying a full auto for self defense rarely makes sense, a concealed handgun is a much better option. Easier to hide the fact that you are armed. This holds true for criminals as well, they, generally, would prefer to gain the advantage by surprising you, thus a handgun is usually the weapon of choice. Therefore, banning "assault type weapons" (whatever those are) will do little to solve the violent crime problem we face. Criminals, and would be criminals, will simply be better armed than the rest of us, or they will choose a different weapon. So, if your goal, in banning a particular weapon type, is to reduce crime, it would be much more effective to study the "why" of crimes, and address that, than to study the "how" and address that.

So, I must ask, is your intent to simply get rid of a type of gun, or are you more interested in reducing crime?

 

[Chuz Life]

Thanks in large part to gun control measures

Those "gun control" measures worked out pretty good in places like San Bernadino, and Miami, didn't they? The problem with "gun control" laws, is that criminals, by definition, don't care!!! All they do is keep those guns out of the hands of the rest of us, so we cannot effectively defend ourselves against them.

Well we live in a gun crazy country that has over 400 million guns floating around and almost all of them unaccounted for. Increasing that number only makes it easier for criminals to get guns.

By your logic, we should get rid of murder laws, since murderers are going to ignore them and kill anyways.

Are you insane? How can you possibly make that leap? Evel Knievel couldn't even do that!

You said bad guys will just ignore laws if they want to.

Yes, I did. There is a very big difference here though. We have a constitutionally protected RIGHT to keep and bear arms, we also have a right to, among other things, life. So, your false comparison falls flat right there. Any law attempting to "legalise" murder would be immediately struck down as unconstitutional. Conversely, it is not unconstitutional to allow people the ability to bear the type of arms necessary for them to protect themselves and their rights. Now, I suppose one could make the argument that assault weapons, and "assault type weapons" (whatever those are), are not necessary. I would counter that with the following:
"Have you ever heard the proverb, don't bring a knife to a gunfight? I assume that you understand what that means. If one is likely to engage in a gunfight, it would be wise to be at least as well armed as your opposition may be. Ask any military strategist and they will tell you that one of the best ways to gain the advantage in a fight is to bring what is called "overwhelming force". Hence why I would choose a full auto over a semi auto every time. It really matters not how the opposition is armed in actuality, I would prefer to not take the chance of being outgunned, if given the choice.

Now, that said, carrying a full auto for self defense rarely makes sense, a concealed handgun is a much better option. Easier to hide the fact that you are armed. This holds true for criminals as well, they, generally, would prefer to gain the advantage by surprising you, thus a handgun is usually the weapon of choice. Therefore, banning "assault type weapons" (whatever those are) will do little to solve the violent crime problem we face. Criminals, and would be criminals, will simply be better armed than the rest of us, or they will choose a different weapon. So, if your goal, in banning a particular weapon type, is to reduce crime, it would be much more effective to study the "why" of crimes, and address that, than to study the "how" and address that.

So, I must ask, is your intent to simply get rid of a type of gun, or are you more interested in reducing crime?

This is. . .







Frameworthy!

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Winston]

Assault weapons not protected by Second Amendment, federal appeals court rules

I'm posting from my phone so I am sorry for not quoting the text.

Let's discuss.

This is the kind of decision that can lead to very bad things.

The Democrat politicians of Marylard are the second dumbest to the Democrat Politicians of the US of A.

I have posted 2 pictures below, which is an assault rifle and which one isn't? I bet you libs will get it wrong, everytime...

View attachment 113702 View attachment 113703

Both of these weapons are Ruger 10/22 semi automatic weapons. They are not assault weapons.

A M-16 is an Assault weapon, an AR-15 is a hunting rifle. Shame some people on this site never graduated from a real school, instead of the propaganda public school.

I think it is time to stop pussy footing around.

The 2nd Amendment was not written to secure the people's right to keep and bear HUNTING rifles. It was not written to secure the people's right to have guns for sport or for collecting.

The 2nd Amendment was written to secure our right AND OUR ABILITY to have the weapons necessary to DEFEND ourselves and our freedoms MILITARILY - even against our own government - should it ever again be necessary for us to do so.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - Declaration of Independence

Can you imagine the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution and their reactions to any King or even their own Government - trying to dictate to them what weapons they could and could not have to DEFEND themselves and their liberties against such tyranny?

Those bayonets on the ends of the Kentucky long rifles carried by the minutemen (CIVILIANS) during the revolutionary war were not for DEER HUNTING. The Cannons they used against the king and his men were not for defense against Squirrels.

We all agree (I hope) that there can be limits and regulations - reasonable regulations that the people might "consent" to. However, a RIGHT does not simply get lost or go away when someone CONSENTS to regulation.

The courts are not recognizing the RIGHTS of the people in this case.

The "people" have a 2nd Amendment Constitutional RIGHT to keep and bear weapons of WAR - to defend ourselves against EVEN our own government.

It is time to stop pretending that we don't.

Bayonets were NOT affixed to Kentucky Long Rifles and Cannons were not privately owned.

Revolutionary War era muskets, with a bayonet. George C. Neumann Collection, Valley Forge National Historic Park.

Socket Bayonet
American
1777-1783
Iron. L 43.9, 36.1 [blade] cm
The George C. Neumann Collection, Valley Forge National Historical Park, VAFO 709


"The Americans were quickly beaten, and the British advanced to Concord where the they believed the local Patriots kept most of their arms (including 2 cannons).




But the Americans, knowing that the British were coming to confiscate their weapons, secretly hauled off their arms stores to safety. A group of militia managed to defeat some of the British force at Concord's North Bridge. Disappointed in what they didn't find, the British began to retreat back to Boston, and that's when the massacre really happened. "

"But the Americans, knowing that the British were coming to confiscate their weapons, secretly hauled off their arms stores to safety. "

Same as it ever was!

Muskets and Rifles are two very different things. Seriously, what kind of gun nut are you if you don't know the difference?

 

[jillian]

Assault weapons not protected by Second Amendment, federal appeals court rules

I'm posting from my phone so I am sorry for not quoting the text.

Let's discuss.

This is the kind of decision that can lead to very bad things.

it's a correct decision.

how do you put together your claimed religious beliefs with being a gun loon?

 

[Winston]

Stealing a cannon from the British does not make them privately owned. Hell Peter Francisco carried one off the battlefield on his back. That still doesn't make them privately owned.

If he stole it from the British, who does it belong to?

Wait a minute, you mean if I am a soldier in the US military and I manage to capture a Howitzer from the enemy, I get to take it home with me?

It belonged to the US military, in Francisco's case, it was the Virginia Miltia's cannon to start with.

Wait a minute, you mean if I am a soldier in the US military and I manage to capture a Howitzer from the enemy, I get to take it home with me?

Not these days.

In those days, spoils of war

It belonged to the US military, in Francisco's case, it was the Virginia Miltia's cannon to start with.

and who ended up with it?

Old Molly? It is with the New Boston Artillery Company, where it has pretty much always been. It was under the care of the Old Militia until 1851. Then the city of New Boston kept it hidden. Really not sure how you can any implication of private ownership. Hell, the government even asked for the cannon during the Civil War.

When he carried it off the battlefield, who did it belong to?

The Militia and the city of New Boston..

 

[Auld Phart]

If he stole it from the British, who does it belong to?

Wait a minute, you mean if I am a soldier in the US military and I manage to capture a Howitzer from the enemy, I get to take it home with me?

It belonged to the US military, in Francisco's case, it was the Virginia Miltia's cannon to start with.

Wait a minute, you mean if I am a soldier in the US military and I manage to capture a Howitzer from the enemy, I get to take it home with me?

Not these days.

In those days, spoils of war

It belonged to the US military, in Francisco's case, it was the Virginia Miltia's cannon to start with.

and who ended up with it?

Old Molly? It is with the New Boston Artillery Company, where it has pretty much always been. It was under the care of the Old Militia until 1851. Then the city of New Boston kept it hidden. Really not sure how you can any implication of private ownership. Hell, the government even asked for the cannon during the Civil War.

When he carried it off the battlefield, who did it belong to?

The Militia and the city of New Boston..

Which one carried it away from the battle?

The militia, or the city of Boston.

and how about the other privately owned cannons of the time?

Did they also belong to the militia, or a local city?

You lost this argument about 4 hours ago.

Why are you still responding?

 

[Winston]

Wait a minute, you mean if I am a soldier in the US military and I manage to capture a Howitzer from the enemy, I get to take it home with me?

It belonged to the US military, in Francisco's case, it was the Virginia Miltia's cannon to start with.

Wait a minute, you mean if I am a soldier in the US military and I manage to capture a Howitzer from the enemy, I get to take it home with me?

Not these days.

In those days, spoils of war

It belonged to the US military, in Francisco's case, it was the Virginia Miltia's cannon to start with.

and who ended up with it?

Old Molly? It is with the New Boston Artillery Company, where it has pretty much always been. It was under the care of the Old Militia until 1851. Then the city of New Boston kept it hidden. Really not sure how you can any implication of private ownership. Hell, the government even asked for the cannon during the Civil War.

When he carried it off the battlefield, who did it belong to?

The Militia and the city of New Boston..

Which one carried it away from the battle?

The militia, or the city of Boston.

and how about the other privately owned cannons of the time?

Did they also belong to the militia, or a local city?

You lost this argument about 4 hours ago.

Why are you still responding?

Really, because maybe I am missing it, but I have yet to see where you documented private ownership of cannons. I mean other than people like Blackbeard, well I don't think you can. Old Molly is not going to get it, she is like all the other cannons of the time. Mostly captured and always owned by the community militia. Come on, how big a crew did a three pounder require if deployed on land? Not like you could lung one around on your horse.

How about this, what happened to all the artillery after the Revolutionary War? Did they auction them off as government surplus or something? How did these private citizens get these cannons? Did the moonshiners forge them in their forges? And what did these private citizens use these private cannons for, to call the workers in for supper? You got some newspaper articles or something. Like Old Man McDonald kills cattle rustlers with his three pounder.

 

[Auld Phart]

post #36

Might want to research that a bit more.

Look up John Stark of NH

Looks like you've dug far enough to be buried.

 

[irosie91]

cannons got painted and placed in public parks for kids------to PLAY UPON.
I grew up with lots of cannons-----the cannon balls were WELDED together---
and placed on the ground in pile as another decoration

 

[oldsoul]

Not these days.

In those days, spoils of war
and who ended up with it?

Old Molly? It is with the New Boston Artillery Company, where it has pretty much always been. It was under the care of the Old Militia until 1851. Then the city of New Boston kept it hidden. Really not sure how you can any implication of private ownership. Hell, the government even asked for the cannon during the Civil War.

When he carried it off the battlefield, who did it belong to?

The Militia and the city of New Boston..

Which one carried it away from the battle?

The militia, or the city of Boston.

and how about the other privately owned cannons of the time?

Did they also belong to the militia, or a local city?

You lost this argument about 4 hours ago.

Why are you still responding?

Really, because maybe I am missing it, but I have yet to see where you documented private ownership of cannons. I mean other than people like Blackbeard, well I don't think you can. Old Molly is not going to get it, she is like all the other cannons of the time. Mostly captured and always owned by the community militia. Come on, how big a crew did a three pounder require if deployed on land? Not like you could lung one around on your horse.

How about this, what happened to all the artillery after the Revolutionary War? Did they auction them off as government surplus or something? How did these private citizens get these cannons? Did the moonshiners forge them in their forges? And what did these private citizens use these private cannons for, to call the workers in for supper? You got some newspaper articles or something. Like Old Man McDonald kills cattle rustlers with his three pounder.

I would suggest that if one were interested in knowing who owned private cannons during the revolution, one need only look as far as the "privateers" that were used. By definition, they were private owners of cannons. A couple of links to get you started:
The American Revolution
Privateers or Merchant Mariners help win the Revolutionary War
Privateer - Wikipedia
From the last link "Since robbery under arms was common to seaborne trade, all merchant ships were already armed." What do you think they were armed with? Arrows?

 

[Winston]

Old Molly? It is with the New Boston Artillery Company, where it has pretty much always been. It was under the care of the Old Militia until 1851. Then the city of New Boston kept it hidden. Really not sure how you can any implication of private ownership. Hell, the government even asked for the cannon during the Civil War.

When he carried it off the battlefield, who did it belong to?

The Militia and the city of New Boston..

Which one carried it away from the battle?

The militia, or the city of Boston.

and how about the other privately owned cannons of the time?

Did they also belong to the militia, or a local city?

You lost this argument about 4 hours ago.

Why are you still responding?

Really, because maybe I am missing it, but I have yet to see where you documented private ownership of cannons. I mean other than people like Blackbeard, well I don't think you can. Old Molly is not going to get it, she is like all the other cannons of the time. Mostly captured and always owned by the community militia. Come on, how big a crew did a three pounder require if deployed on land? Not like you could lung one around on your horse.

How about this, what happened to all the artillery after the Revolutionary War? Did they auction them off as government surplus or something? How did these private citizens get these cannons? Did the moonshiners forge them in their forges? And what did these private citizens use these private cannons for, to call the workers in for supper? You got some newspaper articles or something. Like Old Man McDonald kills cattle rustlers with his three pounder.

I would suggest that if one were interested in knowing who owned private cannons during the revolution, one need only look as far as the "privateers" that were used. By definition, they were private owners of cannons. A couple of links to get you started:
The American Revolution
Privateers or Merchant Mariners help win the Revolutionary War
Privateer - Wikipedia
From the last link "Since robbery under arms was common to seaborne trade, all merchant ships were already armed." What do you think they were armed with? Arrows?

pri·va·teer
ˌprīvəˈtir/
noun
historical
plural noun: privateers

1. 1.
   an armed ship owned and officered by private individuals holding a government commission and authorized for use in war, especially in the capture of enemy merchant shipping.

 

[xyz]

I have a question about this: the bans obviously mean a ban on selling them in that state, but what if someone bought one before the ban? And are there differences in these bans from one state to another (assuming they both have a ban)?