Anti Gunners cite and support a "well regulated militia" until a well regulated militia is formed.

[Dadoalex]

Nah, I like watching the big balls penetrate through big things

You wouldn't understand.

 

[odanny]

 

[Failzero]

Which SCOTUS Judges supported Slavery back in the day ?

 

[westwall]

View attachment 937105

Yeah, he was always an idiot.

If his interpretation were accurate, we would have been disarmed long ago.

 

[odanny]

Yeah, he was always an idiot.

If his interpretation were accurate, we would have been disarmed long ago.

That was the exact meaning, but the interpretation has morphed into something absurd, driven by firearm manufacturers and appeals to emotion. If it is interpreted in its present condition, this prviilege is sacrosanct.

 

[westwall]

That was the exact meaning, but the interpretation has morphed into something absurd, driven by firearm manufacturers and appeals to emotion. If it is interpreted in its present condition, this prviilege is sacrosanct.

What is absurd is the claim that a government needs to have a Right enshrined.

Government takes AWAY Rights, it IS power.

The Bill of Rights is a protection from government over reach.

But, feel free to spew your ridiculous claims.

 

[LibertyKid]

Nope, only 1790 weapons.
Single shot manually loaded hand and long guns.

Your rules. I'm just insisting that the rules be consistent.

This premise is incorrect. Founding fathers new the citizens needed to protect the constitution and freedoms from a tyranical gov't. The advancement of "arms" and the usage of arms is not specific to only the military and the people are relegated to muskets for perpetuity. This is illogical and is not substantiated by history.

The people, have the right and the ability to protect the freedoms of the constitution and when the people feel the gov't is no longer serving the people or the constitution, they have the right and ability to do so by force. This doesn't mean the people pull out their muskets.

 

[Dadoalex]

This premise is incorrect. Founding fathers new the citizens needed to protect the constitution and freedoms from a tyranical gov't. The advancement of "arms" and the usage of arms is not specific to only the military and the people are relegated to muskets for perpetuity. This is illogical and is not substantiated by history.

The people, have the right and the ability to protect the freedoms of the constitution and when the people feel the gov't is no longer serving the people or the constitution, they have the right and ability to do so by force. This doesn't mean the people pull out their muskets.

Nope.
If we can only use the definition of "well regulated" from 1789 then we can only use weapons from the same period.

After all...
The Founding Fathers new the citizens needed to protect the constitution and freedoms from a evolution of society and the language and how using a 250 year old definition, oh, say for a woman with extensive medical knowledge who is, in fact, NOT A WITCH shouldn't be burned at the stake for being a witch.

Just as technology changes, so does language.
You can't demand a 250 year old definition be used to describe a weapon from 250 years later.

 

[Failzero]

The horse is outta the Barn 475 + million Firearms / Parts Kits / Spares / Warehoused parts and Historical & Antique / Curio Relic now in US