I am sick and tired of hearing Joe Biden say you couldn’t own a cannon when the Second Amendment was written

I am sick and tired of hearing Joe Biden say you couldn’t own a cannon when the Second Amendment was written.

6 Likes

I don’t listen to Joe Biden. Keeps me healthy and alert.
Guys a clown, never had any intellect, and now adding senility to the mix…c’mon man…

Disclaimer…not totally true, but what I do hear comes out in a morning “fjb” minute long discussion with the wife, then Janice heads to the garden and me to the woodpile…(food/heat…'cuz fjb)

5 Likes

Most democrats wouldn’t know the truth if it bit them in the ass. Tired of them. Really tired of them

4 Likes

Great advice… however sometimes it’s a smart to listen both sides… oh, wait… my mistake… hard to listen if you are asleep after first sentence… :sleeping:

I’m sorry…I shouldn’t be so hard for Mr. President… but… we all have limits… :imp:

7 Likes

Yeah, I catch the blurbs from “guns and gadgets” and “Langley Outdoors” on YouTube primarily…At least those guys are awake, and between the two feeds, I get a “good news/ bad news” dose of all I need to know…at least imo :wink:

2 Likes

Every time he goes off script he puts his whole leg in his mouth. Look at the recent uproar he caused over his comment about Taiwan.

Letters of marque have never been stricken from the Constitution, so in theory I could pay my Congressman enough to get him re-elected next term and he would introduce a bill to have a letter of marque issued to me so that I could prey on pirates off the Horn of Africa and anyone else congress declared to be an enemy of the U.S., ships off the coast of North Korea, headed for the nearest NK port. Shipping in the Gulf of Aqaba headed for Iran. Lots of shipping out there ripe for a ship with a letter of marque.

Of course, that means that I would have to have modern weaponry as opposed to muzzle loading cannons. It’s foolish to try to take pirates who are armed better than you are.

So if we go through a time warp, just what do we suppose our founding fathers had in mind arming ships with letters of marque? Did our F.F.s think that the holders of letters of marque were going to try to take ships with cutlasses and muskets? Or were they somewhat more practical than the dunderheads presenting pontificating in the District of Corruption? I submit our F.F.s were a lot sounder of mind. They expected holders of letters of marque to be armed with the latest in ship warfare weaponry which most certainly included the latest in cannons.

2 Likes

One did not need a Letter of Marque to own cannons. Many were purchased by private citizens to provide for militia groups and troops, maybe even personal use - it was, and still is, legal. I laugh at the ATF where it states that [m]uzzleloading cannons manufactured in or before 1898 (and replicas thereof) that are not capable of firing fixed ammunition are not destructive devices and are not subject to the provisions of either the Gun Control Act (GCA) or National Firearms Act (NFA).

2 Likes

I am sure the troops at Fort McHenry and Fort Sumpter and all the other placed under siege in the first two hundred years of existence didn’t think muzzle loading cannons were non-destructive devices.

I totally agree that many folk in the 18th century possessed cannons. Most trading posts and other fortified enclaves on the frontier (Pittsburg and other settlements along the rivers) had swivel guns mounted on the palisades. A swivel gun is either a very large shotgun or a small cannon. Those were not provided by the goobermint but by the owner of the trading post.

My point was that we still have provisions in the Constitution for private citizens to own the latest and best in large-caliber, mounted, crew-served weapons and I maintain, guided missiles. The ATF’s position that we cannot own them is at variance with the Constitution.

2 Likes

In his twisted logic, he is right: YOU were not alive back then so You could not own a cannon!

2 Likes

Between him and VP Harris, the USA has become a laughing stock throughout the whole world. All because people didn’t like “mean tweets”!

5 Likes

Apparently John Sutter didn’t get the memo:

2 Likes

I believe they could own a cannon if they could afford one. In fact, I think the Government at the time would welcome it.

1 Like

Of course, only the likes of Jeff Bezos, George Soros, Bill Gates and Elon Musk could afford to field those kinds of weapons systems these days.
Is that what you want? Really?
Personally I think a black powder cannon would be pretty cool,
Civil War reenactors usually have a few, and those are legal
Many ski resorts have a 105mm Howitzer legally tucked away somewhere for avalanche control
You want a cannon? The Pride and the Passion (1957) Trailer 1 - YouTube

Here’s a question. When the US was building Fission and Fusion Weapons weren’t those technically owned by the manufacturing corporations until they were delivered and paid for by the government?

1 Like

No, I don’t care as long as they don’t misuse them. There is no indication at present that I know of that any of them would misuse such weaponry. Many folks own destructive weapons that have not been demised. So far I haven’t heard of any of them misusing them. I would love to fire the quad fifty at the yearly auto weapons and other fun instruments of destruction shoot some place back east. The only problem with shooting a quad fifty is that one is shooting 24 $5.00 bullets every second you have the trigger depressed. That’s a little expensive for my budget.

You can be sure that all of those billionaires have lots of privately paid “security” personnel that one could construe as a private militia if the billionaire didn’t have enough political clout to preclude any such prosecution. Do you think their body guards don’t have automatic weapons, MP5s and other interesting toys? If you do, may I talk to you about a sure thing in bridges?

1 Like

Quad .50s are cool.
Any .50 is cool.
I was referring to guided missal systems that can bring down airliners, etc…

Not to continue to beat a dead horse, but John, you are doing exactly what the hoplophobes of the country do, assign evil intent to the instrumentality rather than the human intent. Do you think if Jeff Bezos really wanted to obtain an anti-aircraft rocket he couldn’t obtain one? Do you think a law against owning such really would keep him from obtaining a rocket from some source in the international weapons market?

Oh, oh, oh, you can’t own the destructive 9 mm pistol because it can kill, blow the lungs out of some innocent victim. Funny how folks manage to get all kinds of weapons that are illegal to own without much effort. It isn’t the instrument. It isn’t some deus ex machina instrumentality that goes off on it own killing folks. It is the human involved.

The problem is that dealing with the human element is an infinitely difficult problem. It is so much easier to pass blanket “feel good” panaceas than it is to address the problem of the distorted individual. Well, let’s lock up everybody who is angry. Wow! Talk about overcrowded prisons! Well, let’s lock up everybody who acts strangely.
Who decides what is strange? Is it your yardstick or mine?

We used to joke when working the mentally ill calendar that the staff wore name tags and the patients didn’t. That’s how we told staff from patients. They all wore scrubs of varying colors, so that wasn’t a help. Peculiar behavior was endemic at the mental health wards. The staff was as weird as the patients. So name tags it was. Staff = name tags. Patients = no name tags. See what I mean about unusual behavior? Who decides. It is a nuanced decision. It is a very difficult decision.

Should uttered threats be taken seriously? In my view, absolutely. Yes, there is freedom of speech, but uttering threats of harm should not be treated as being within the first amendment. That’s my opinion. I feel confident that several readers of this post will disagree and posit situations where uttering threats should be within the realm of free speech.

For another instance, look at the attempts to make statements by Donald Trump before the Jan 6th peaceful demonstrations into felony attempts at fomenting insurrection.

So, yeah, if Jeff Bezos wanted to own an anti-aircraft rocket, why not? It’s not the instrumentality, it is the human behind the instrumentality. At least two billionaires are launching private rockets into orbit or near space. What is to prevent one of them from programming one of the launches to impact the Grey House in the District of Corruption? By the time someone figured out that the rocket really wasn’t going where it was announced, it would be too late to deter the strike. Given how Sleepy Joe bumbles around, there might not even be time to get him to schlep down into the Grey House bomb shelter or on to the Marine helicopter.

1 Like

If the owner can maintain and control his weapon of choice, that is no different than bearing any other armament under the 2A.
In that I’m in agreement. A sophisticated weapons system requiring vehicles, support units, trained technicians and security personnel and other infrastructure complicates the reality of who, exactly, is bearing arms. Who is held accountable?

The reason for the 2A, if I understand correctly, is to oppose tyranny. In today’s climate, we may well need sophisticated weapons systems to repel tyranny—witness Ukraine’s need for sophisticated missiles —but operationally it is physically ridiculous to expect one person to bear such armaments. This of course is changing. Javelins and Switchblades are built to be born by infantrymen, and thank God they are, but that’s not the sort of weapons systems i was referring to.

The unique strength of the 2A is that everybody has the right to keep and bear arms.
Everybody makes up the militia when necessary.
Would it be within the scope of the 2A to limit weapons to just the super wealthy?
Of course not.
However a privately owned cutting edge weapon system mandating a Soros sized fortune to acquire, operate and maintain and that would make every other privately owned weapon obsolete is not, I expect, within the scope of the 2A any more than the establishment of a monarchy where Barons held irresistible power over the commoners.
Fully armed nuclear subs and bombers and like weapons systems are more efficiently part of the military.
Realistically, we’re not going to stop a nuclear warhead launched by a friend or foe and such arguments are rhetorical phantasms, however if you have a 9mm, AR, 12 gauge and are trained, you may be able to stop a tyrant or other aggressor.
That is my point.

2 Likes

I know a guy who presently has two black powder cannons of really impressive size, together with the carriage and the limber to go with them. While they may be single shot and take a few minutes to load, I have seen well regulated cannon crews crank out four rounds a minute and while they don’t explode, I wouldn’t want one to hit near me. He built them himself and they are perfectly legal. He does get some stares when he drags them to a shoot behind his pickup truck . He does cover the muzzle with a canvas bag so as not to frenzy too many hoplophobes.

4 Likes