Win uses cookies necessary for site functionality, as well as for personalization. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
You can own stuff that is huge. But when the Government starts regulating the individual munition rounds as well as the weapon it gets pretty expensive for each $200 tax stamp on each round.
They also had access to semi-automatics. The inventor wanted Congress to evaluate a trial whereby two American groups of 20 men fought side by side. One group was to be supplied and trained by him.
His offer, and the extent of his entrepreneurship, was that if his weapon killed 10x as many British, the cost was 10x that of a normal gun. (Etc) Congress never considered it.
If he had used the modern "free trial offer" instead, with as little as one gun, and set a fixed price that was profitable but reasonable, he might have been successful. I don't know that he ever sold any, but Congress certainly knew such a thing existed and didn't restrict it in 2A.
I always reframe this argument. The point of the 2nd amendment is to keep a tyrannical government in check. The argument isn't whether or not we should have AR-15s, but whether or not we should have Apache helicopters and Abrams tanks.
The spirit and intent of the second amendment is to equip the people with means through which they can undo tyranical rule, should all other failsafes fail.
The army, at the time had cannons, and so on. The army now has laser-guided missiles, drones, nuclear warheads, giant carriers etc.
It would be legally sound for people to be able to purchase jetplanes, nukes, etc, as it would allow them to defend from tyranny of the government.
This isn't quite true. The original intent was quite clear from their choice of language, plus they wrote further on this topic just like they did every other.
"Arms" meant the weapon was designed to be carried and operated by one person, and usually used against one human target. This was distinct from artillery.
The idea was not that civilians could ever fight a full army with artillery in position, that's too impractical. The idea was if a military unit went rogue citizen's could halt their advance and call for help from the military before they brought artillery into position.
This got messy when we didn't have a Navy and suddenly needed one. Captains were "allowed" to have cannons, not that any LEO existed to stop them. But they were hired as mercenaries.
How exactly that transitioned into people having their own cannons at home I'm not sure, but the only instances of that I've read about were politicians :/
And even their muskets were .65-.75 caliber. Rifles were state of the art and mostly private citizens had them, not military
Our military was private citizens. Muskets did not win the Revolutionary War. Skilled hunters did.
Skilled hunters with rifles
Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
Enter the Judge.
Kek, I love this one!
Don't forget the privately owned warships.
Very true
You can own stuff that is huge. But when the Government starts regulating the individual munition rounds as well as the weapon it gets pretty expensive for each $200 tax stamp on each round.
What, my automatic grenade launcher is a bit pricey? Better crowd control than a video camera and call to the Police.
(Relax, any glowfags reading this, I don't actually have an automatic grenade launcher. Obviously)
They definitely had machine guns.
https://www.whoinventedit.net/who-invented-the-machine-gun.html#:~:text=The%20Maxim%20Machine%20Gun%20and%20Others.%20This%20rapid,it%20would%20also%20become%20popular%20with%20European%20armies.
They also had access to semi-automatics. The inventor wanted Congress to evaluate a trial whereby two American groups of 20 men fought side by side. One group was to be supplied and trained by him.
His offer, and the extent of his entrepreneurship, was that if his weapon killed 10x as many British, the cost was 10x that of a normal gun. (Etc) Congress never considered it.
If he had used the modern "free trial offer" instead, with as little as one gun, and set a fixed price that was profitable but reasonable, he might have been successful. I don't know that he ever sold any, but Congress certainly knew such a thing existed and didn't restrict it in 2A.
Biden plans on making all ARs illegal 2/15.
I always reframe this argument. The point of the 2nd amendment is to keep a tyrannical government in check. The argument isn't whether or not we should have AR-15s, but whether or not we should have Apache helicopters and Abrams tanks.
Some people do privately own tanks. Some even haven't been fully demilitarized.
The spirit and intent of the second amendment is to equip the people with means through which they can undo tyranical rule, should all other failsafes fail.
The army, at the time had cannons, and so on. The army now has laser-guided missiles, drones, nuclear warheads, giant carriers etc.
It would be legally sound for people to be able to purchase jetplanes, nukes, etc, as it would allow them to defend from tyranny of the government.
This isn't quite true. The original intent was quite clear from their choice of language, plus they wrote further on this topic just like they did every other.
"Arms" meant the weapon was designed to be carried and operated by one person, and usually used against one human target. This was distinct from artillery.
The idea was not that civilians could ever fight a full army with artillery in position, that's too impractical. The idea was if a military unit went rogue citizen's could halt their advance and call for help from the military before they brought artillery into position.
This got messy when we didn't have a Navy and suddenly needed one. Captains were "allowed" to have cannons, not that any LEO existed to stop them. But they were hired as mercenaries.
How exactly that transitioned into people having their own cannons at home I'm not sure, but the only instances of that I've read about were politicians :/
If the 2nd only applies to muskets the 1st only applies to newspapers.
That's good!
Wow, you are so witty!