CDZ Another shot heard round the world.

[Chuz Life]

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.

OWNED and Officered by. . .

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

 

[Chuz Life]

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?

Seriously. What makes you think I don't know the difference between a musket and a rifle?

As a military vet, I am betting I know the differences better than any typical gunophobes would know it.


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

 

[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.

it's a correct decision.

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

It was an Unconstitutional decision and (for as many times as I have to repeat it) I AIN'T RELIGIOUS. And,. . . It's not about ME anyway.

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

 

[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?

It was an Unconstitutional decision and (for as many times as I have to repeat it) I AIN'T RELIGIOUS. And,. . . It's not about ME anyway.

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

no. it was a correct decision. your disagreement does not make it unconstitutional. moreover, by definition, it can't be... it was held constitutional as have other restraints of this nature. the only unconstitutional thing, based on heller, is there can't be a total ban.

but a) please tell us where you believe your expertise comes from; and b) you did not answer my question --- how do you square a love of murdering weapons with your professed religiousity.

 

[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.

it's a correct decision.

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

It was an Unconstitutional decision and (for as many times as I have to repeat it) I AIN'T RELIGIOUS. And,. . . It's not about ME anyway.

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

no. it was a correct decision. your disagreement does not make it unconstitutional. moreover, by definition, it can't be... it was held constitutional as have other restraints of this nature. the only unconstitutional thing, based on heller, is there can't be a total ban.

but a) please tell us where you believe your expertise comes from; and b) you did not answer my question --- how do you square a love of murdering weapons with your professed religiousity.

It was an Unconstitutional decision and will likely be overturned by the SCOTUS on appeal. Especially after Trump's nominees take their seats on the bench.

My expertise comes from my education and understanding of the Constitution, the 2nd amendment, U.S. history, the Declaration of independence, the federalist and anti- federalist papers and various States Constitution's which establish the CONTEXT for what the 2nd amendment says and the reasons for why it was written in the first place. This includes my education from within the Military- when I served in the Marine corps.

Finally, weapons (firearms) are just tools. They are much more often used for sport, hunting and personal defense than they are being MISUSED in murders. And, when you consider that it is all about the DEFENDING of rights and innocent lives, you will start to understand the consistency and commonality between those views.





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

 

[2aguy]

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

Thanks in large part to gun control measures

No.....gangs don't use rifles because you can't put them in your waist band or under a car seat or in your baby momma's purse.......

 

[2aguy]

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?

It was an Unconstitutional decision and (for as many times as I have to repeat it) I AIN'T RELIGIOUS. And,. . . It's not about ME anyway.

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

no. it was a correct decision. your disagreement does not make it unconstitutional. moreover, by definition, it can't be... it was held constitutional as have other restraints of this nature. the only unconstitutional thing, based on heller, is there can't be a total ban.

but a) please tell us where you believe your expertise comes from; and b) you did not answer my question --- how do you square a love of murdering weapons with your professed religiousity.

Nope...that wasn't the standard in Heller.....

this is what Heller actually said.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[2aguy]

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.

And you have no idea what you are talking about.....

in the 1990s we had 200 million guns in private hands....and in 1997 we had 4.7 million Americans carrying guns for self defense....

in 2016 we now have 357=400 million guns in private hands and well over 15 million people carrying guns for self defense......

During this increase in gun ownership and carrying...our gun murder rate went down 49%.....our violent crime rate went down 75%......

That was until Ferguson and obama began attacking the police.....the numbers went up in 2015-2016 because the police stopped making stops......

Now that Trump is back and supporting the police, the downward movement of gun crime will resume...

 

[2aguy]

Really?

What prevented the thousands of people that used handguns to murder people from using so called 'assault weapons' that are available over the counter?

If they qualify to buy a handgun, they qualify to buy a scary looking AR-15.

I don't know. Stupidity? Either that or they lived in a state where assault rifles are banned.

all 7 states?

76 million people in those 7 states

Guess in those states, they murdered each other with handguns.

2014 stats

Handguns
5562

• Rifles
  248

• Shotguns
  262

hmmm
More killed by shotgun than rifles...

I wonder how many more would have died if the killers had chosen assault rifles as their weapons.

Don't worry about the rifles.......worry about knives...they murder over 1,500 people every single year.....

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8


rifles....252

knives 1,544

clubs 437

hands 624

 

[2aguy]

We will save more lives by banning guns than banning Muslims

No......more people were killed by muslims with rental trucks than in any attack with a gun....

 

[there4eyeM]

Funny that the history of the development of assault style weapons is very clear.

 

[2aguy]

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.

again...the old lazy argument about not having any laws......we have laws that define punishment for breaking the law....they do not prevent people from physically breaking the law.......that is why law abiding people are not shooting people.....90% of murderers are convicted felons....70-80% of gun murder victims are also convicted felons...and of the remaining number, many are relatives or friends of the criminals ....

 

[2aguy]

Funny that the history of the development of assault style weapons is very clear.

and yet you don't know what you are talking about.......

 

[2aguy]

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?

and you are wrong...New York is near Vermont.....the state with the least repressive gun laws in the country, looser gun laws than Indiana in fact....dittos Los Angeles...their gang members can simply go to any of a number of states to get their guns....

Chicago gangs control their ward aldermen......the chicao police have reduced police stops 80% since 2015.....repeat gun offenders get 2 years or less for getting caught with an illegal gun......

New york just did a major arrest of thousands of gang members and they used to have stop and frisk......

 

[2aguy]

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 aren't.....their gang culture is different, and they used to have stop and frisk...which kept gang members from carrying guns around all the time......and just recently they had massive gang arrests.....on top of that, they have a longer prison sentence for gun offenders.....

Chicago....their gangs control the local aldermen, Chicago is down about 2,000 police officers due to not hiring enough...1000 , and sick days and vacation days, 1000 every day.....they also have only a 2 year sentence for repeat gun offenders with prior felony convictions...since the democrat politicians don't want to increase the jail sentences for gun crime because most of the criminals are black and hispanic....

That is why Chicago has more gun murder than Los Angeles and New York.....

Otherwise you would have to say that L.A. gangs can't drive to Utah, Arizona or Texas to get illegal guns......or mexico.....and that New York gangs can't drive to Vermont....with the least restrictive gun laws in the country, Maine, or Pennsylvania....

 

[2aguy]

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?

and...the gangs in New York still get guns...and they are using them more often now that the stop and frisk policy is over....they have had a short reprieve because they just did a massive gang arrest last year....

 

[2aguy]

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?

It was an Unconstitutional decision and (for as many times as I have to repeat it) I AIN'T RELIGIOUS. And,. . . It's not about ME anyway.

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

no. it was a correct decision. your disagreement does not make it unconstitutional. moreover, by definition, it can't be... it was held constitutional as have other restraints of this nature. the only unconstitutional thing, based on heller, is there can't be a total ban.

but a) please tell us where you believe your expertise comes from; and b) you did not answer my question --- how do you square a love of murdering weapons with your professed religiousity.

No...it is not Constitutional since the decision the 4th made ignored 3 different Supreme Court decisions that governed the very topic covered....Miller, Caetano, and Heller....all which hold that the 2nd Amendment does, in fact, protect military weapons for civilians......

you are wrong....

 

[2aguy]

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?

It was an Unconstitutional decision and (for as many times as I have to repeat it) I AIN'T RELIGIOUS. And,. . . It's not about ME anyway.

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

no. it was a correct decision. your disagreement does not make it unconstitutional. moreover, by definition, it can't be... it was held constitutional as have other restraints of this nature. the only unconstitutional thing, based on heller, is there can't be a total ban.

but a) please tell us where you believe your expertise comes from; and b) you did not answer my question --- how do you square a love of murdering weapons with your professed religiousity.

From Heller.....

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.

 

[there4eyeM]

The history of assault weapons is not clear?

 

[2aguy]

The history of assault weapons is not clear?

Yep.....the AR-15 is not a military weapon.....it is not select fire, and has never been used by the military...it is a civilian rifle...