We've got to do something about these clip fed revolvers

[williepete]

I had to flip a coin to decide where to post this. Firearms or Humor. Finally realizing this person is a qualified gun expert, a history professor and learning it was impossible to conceal a pistol under a cloak in the 18th century, tails it was and here it is:

"...any logical reading of the Second Amendment, which starts off with "A well regulated militia ... " would conclude that the authors meant to limit that right to what are currently the rough equivalent of National Guard participants despite what five Conservative SCOTUS members might think.

Remember the historical context: The Founders were fearful of another invasion like the one they had just beat back. If everyone had the right to posses a gun, then the militia clause would not have been needed nor included. The Constitution is otherwise silent about weaponry ownership, probably denoting the lack of consensus on the subject. And certainly the Founders could not have imagined assault rifles, clip loaded revolvers and concealable pistols. This constitutional understanding should precede any discussion of "gun rights."

LINK:
Gun rights argument is a fallacy

 

[hortysir]

Comma = And

 

[williepete]

Comma = And

I blame the Malbec. It was an inferior year.

Thakns. I psoted b4 pruff reeding. Surry.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I had to flip a coin to decide where to post this. Firearms or Humor. Finally realizing this person is a qualified gun expert, a history professor and learning it was impossible to conceal a pistol under a cloak in the 18th century, tails it was and here it is:

"...any logical reading of the Second Amendment, which starts off with "A well regulated militia ... " would conclude that the authors meant to limit that right to what are currently the rough equivalent of National Guard participants despite what five Conservative SCOTUS members might think.

Remember the historical context: The Founders were fearful of another invasion like the one they had just beat back. If everyone had the right to posses a gun, then the militia clause would not have been needed nor included. The Constitution is otherwise silent about weaponry ownership, probably denoting the lack of consensus on the subject. And certainly the Founders could not have imagined assault rifles, clip loaded revolvers and concealable pistols. This constitutional understanding should precede any discussion of "gun rights."

LINK:
Gun rights argument is a fallacy

Most anti-gun retards have no idea what they are talking about. Not just the clip fiasco but more importantly the militia part. When the Constitution was written the entire war effort was people bringing their own guns to battle. Not people in the guard or any other military branch but farmers and others bringing their own gear to the fight. The militia is us, the people, outside of any military or government body of influence. We are the militia.

 

[WinterBorn]

The biggest thing that the anti-gun people forget when they talk about the 2nd being written at a time when it was all muzzle loaders is that those muzzle loaders were also sate-of-the-art military weapons too.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I don't believe that guy was either a competent "gun expert' or historian. ALL the forces we fought the revolution with were militia as they were most certainly illegal. A cape or cloak could conceal a long gun nevermind a pistol. I'm sure Abe Lincoln will be much relieved to know muzzle-loading pistols can't be concealed.

 

[PredFan]

Like all gun grabbers, he's an idiot.

 

[hortysir]

The biggest thing that the anti-gun people forget when they talk about the 2nd being written at a time when it was all muzzle loaders is that those muzzle loaders were also sate-of-the-art military weapons too.

I've often wondered when/how we let ourselves be regulated out of being as up to date in our arsenal as the government gets to be

 

[Roadrunner]

Comma = And

I blame the Malbec. It was an inferior year.

Thakns. I psoted b4 pruff reeding. Surry.

Grate slap at a gramma Knotsy.

 

[Mr.Right]

I had to flip a coin to decide where to post this. Firearms or Humor. Finally realizing this person is a qualified gun expert, a history professor and learning it was impossible to conceal a pistol under a cloak in the 18th century, tails it was and here it is:

"...any logical reading of the Second Amendment, which starts off with "A well regulated militia ... " would conclude that the authors meant to limit that right to what are currently the rough equivalent of National Guard participants despite what five Conservative SCOTUS members might think.

Remember the historical context: The Founders were fearful of another invasion like the one they had just beat back. If everyone had the right to posses a gun, then the militia clause would not have been needed nor included. The Constitution is otherwise silent about weaponry ownership, probably denoting the lack of consensus on the subject. And certainly the Founders could not have imagined assault rifles, clip loaded revolvers and concealable pistols. This constitutional understanding should precede any discussion of "gun rights."

LINK:
Gun rights argument is a fallacy

Back in the day, your average citizen WAS the militia. And the first amendment was also intended to protect us from our own government. Your argument fails.