Screw The Law!

[transcend]

Do you even know why legalese exists? To confound what is right and true. Also, no matter how any law is written, there is one thing that you can never get around. Which is that the law means whatever those in power says it means. For example, the constitution says Americans have the right to bear arms. That means if I wanted to carry a concealed pistol. I have the right to do so. But the law doesn't think so. Also, if anybody want's to own a gun, they can do so.

But back when the law was written, they only had flintlock weapons. But can we assume that if they had machine guns back then, the law would be the same? I think so. That was the whole point. But try being an average person and owning a fully automatic machine gun. It isn't possible unless you have permits up the ass. And even then, there are only certain areas where you are allowed to shoot them.

 

[pismoe]

agree for the most part Transcend !!

 

[Auld Phart]

Do you even know why legalese exists? To confound what is right and true. Also, no matter how any law is written, there is one thing that you can never get around. Which is that the law means whatever those in power says it means. For example, the constitution says Americans have the right to bear arms. That means if I wanted to carry a concealed pistol. I have the right to do so. But the law doesn't think so. Also, if anybody want's to own a gun, they can do so.

But back when the law was written, they only had flintlock weapons. But can we assume that if they had machine guns back then, the law would be the same? I think so. That was the whole point. But try being an average person and owning a fully automatic machine gun. It isn't possible unless you have permits up the ass. And even then, there are only certain areas where you are allowed to shoot them.

But can we assume that if they had machine guns back then, the law would be the same?

They did have them.

they were rare, but they were around.

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you even know why legalese exists? To confound what is right and true. Also, no matter how any law is written, there is one thing that you can never get around. Which is that the law means whatever those in power says it means. For example, the constitution says Americans have the right to bear arms. That means if I wanted to carry a concealed pistol. I have the right to do so. But the law doesn't think so. Also, if anybody want's to own a gun, they can do so.

But back when the law was written, they only had flintlock weapons. But can we assume that if they had machine guns back then, the law would be the same? I think so. That was the whole point. But try being an average person and owning a fully automatic machine gun. It isn't possible unless you have permits up the ass. And even then, there are only certain areas where you are allowed to shoot them.

It's always entertaining to tell the "muskets only" folks -- that at the time the BofRights was written, private citizens could own the equivalent of Class A Battleships.. In fact, the Constitution reference to Marques of Reprisals written by Congress ENCOURAGED privateers to go after pirates and other bad guys with 6 or 8 cannon on board and fully armed.

 

[transcend]

Do you even know why legalese exists? To confound what is right and true. Also, no matter how any law is written, there is one thing that you can never get around. Which is that the law means whatever those in power says it means. For example, the constitution says Americans have the right to bear arms. That means if I wanted to carry a concealed pistol. I have the right to do so. But the law doesn't think so. Also, if anybody want's to own a gun, they can do so.

But back when the law was written, they only had flintlock weapons. But can we assume that if they had machine guns back then, the law would be the same? I think so. That was the whole point. But try being an average person and owning a fully automatic machine gun. It isn't possible unless you have permits up the ass. And even then, there are only certain areas where you are allowed to shoot them.

But can we assume that if they had machine guns back then, the law would be the same?

They did have them.

they were rare, but they were around.

No. They didn't. The closest they could possibly come to one would have been something with multiple barrels. It would have been a contraption so expensive that only a government could afford one.

 

[Auld Phart]

Do you even know why legalese exists? To confound what is right and true. Also, no matter how any law is written, there is one thing that you can never get around. Which is that the law means whatever those in power says it means. For example, the constitution says Americans have the right to bear arms. That means if I wanted to carry a concealed pistol. I have the right to do so. But the law doesn't think so. Also, if anybody want's to own a gun, they can do so.

But back when the law was written, they only had flintlock weapons. But can we assume that if they had machine guns back then, the law would be the same? I think so. That was the whole point. But try being an average person and owning a fully automatic machine gun. It isn't possible unless you have permits up the ass. And even then, there are only certain areas where you are allowed to shoot them.

But can we assume that if they had machine guns back then, the law would be the same?

They did have them.

they were rare, but they were around.

No. They didn't. The closest they could possibly come to one would have been something with multiple barrels. It would have been a contraption so expensive that only a government could afford one.

One barrel

and long before the 2nd A