I’m not having that conversation until most of the “elected socialist officials” are hung (metaphorically speaking) from a bridge or light pole and the rest duct tape their mouths shut!
The science suggests that, there’s a 100% chance that when hung they can’t transmit or catch coronavirus and there’s a 99.9% chance that when their mouths are duct taped , they can’t spew their bullish. In addition, I understand that when you lose one of your senses another sense becomes sharper. Hence the more tightly the duct tape becomes the better the listening! You can fact check that!
Then we should mansplain the concept of SHALL NOT! Maybe we apply that to taxation!
3 Likes
I heard a great explanation the other day which pointed out that since the “government had militia the people would need protection of their right to bear arms”.
1 Like
We still have a militia.
4 Likes
Far be it from me to not “follow the science!” You can’t argue with science. 
4 Likes
The term “assault weapon” is a recently made up term to scare the under informed masses into giving up liberty for a false sense of security. IF A SEMI-AUTOFIREARM, not used by our military, is too dangerous for civilians to have then anything with GPS should also be banned since that was developed for military combat before the civilian use was allowed.
7 Likes
But with the right “permission slip”, you are “allowed” to own many of them. Also, with the right “permission slip”, you are “allowed” to build them, as most of our government’s arms are built by corporations, not the government.
2 Likes
No. As “they” say, when the constitution was written, all weapons were assault weapons.
4 Likes
I think using examples of what weapons existed at the time is a poor argument. The better argument is asking if the founding fathers would not protect free speech today on the radio, TV, and internet just because they didn’t exist when they wrote the constitution.
2 Likes
I like that argument, and I’ve used it, but I wonder if it’s less effective with the alarming decline in free speech support.
My entire life, there was always broad support for the 1st Amendment, even if there were specific disagreements about how it should be applied. Within the last few years, it seems, I read more and more disparaging opinions on free speech. We failed to teach this generation the importance of liberty.
3 Likes
7 Likes
That is definitely a problem. Lots of people are big supporters of people’s rights as long as those people agree with them. The rights of people they disagree with are expendable.
The 4th amendment is on life support and the 1st amendment is under assault as well.
6 Likes
The antis claim that the Founding Fathers would not advocate for semi-auto because it did not exist then. The argument against that is the proof that not only did that exist, but so did automatic and select fire via superposed loads (powder and balls loaded one after the other in one barrel with touch holes for each charge, and other variants of such), multi-barreled arms, and arms that had magazines. It is just another nail in the coffin in which their argument rests.
2 Likes
What you are lamenting is the death of Pluralism as a defining concept of Americanism. You see, Individualism cannot exist without Pluralism, and the Globalists are trying hard to destroy the foundations of Individualism and Nationalism. Destroying the USA is their prime directive in accomplishing this, as we have been both beacon and bastion of liberty for almost 2 and a half centuries.
5 Likes
Could we please stop using gun grabbers terminology. When a LEO has an AR-15 its a “Personal Defense Weapon”
When a civilian has the exact same AR-15 its an “Assault weapon”. Stop doing the gun grabbers job for them.
Jesus wept.
8 Likes
Why would that have made any difference? They had crime. Murder with arms happened. The only thing different was they were fighting the oppressive government that was attempting to take their weapons and liberty, while now we just complain.
3 Likes
I don’t think so. The Kentucky/Pennsylvania rifle was the “assault” rifle of the time. It was not banned. It featured a rifled barrel over the smooth bore Brown Bess used by the British Empire, and was far more accurate especially at distances over 50 yards. Fifty yards was the effective range of the Brown Bess while the rifles used by the Colonials could reach out to 100 yards and more, A real advantage in the battlefield.
3 Likes
The “Shot heard around the world” was a response to an attempt by Major Pitcairn of the Royal Marines to enforce a gun confiscation ordered by General Gage in Boston.
4 Likes
The Pucket machine gun was patented in 1719 and machine gun was used in its patent. Also every single signatory founding father agreed 100% on the need to have the 2nd Amendment.
One last point amongst all of those who created the documents upon which our nation was founded. They, collectively, held 100’s of patents. We should believe that they could not foresee technological advancement.
If you had the will and means you could own better weapons than the military at that time.
4 Likes
Read the Jefferson Papers, the founding fathers wanted the people to have the SAME weapons as the government. A mini-gun would be hard to kept fed but would be reassuring to own.
6 Likes
Since they had just fought a war over an out of control government, and the second amendment is all about the over reaching government, I expect they would question the limits on machine guns and suppressors.
Read some of the Federalist papers.
5 Likes