Another counter to 2ndAmendment = Muskets?

[RicInOR]

This was in my news feeds for today


https://www.thefederalistpapers.org...fersons-assault-rifle-the-girardoni-air-rifle

 

[etrain16]

I saw a documentary on that gun a while ago. At that time, I wasn't even aware they had air rifles back then, much less on that could be used for hunting, etc. I recall they mentioned of the rifle that it too a very long time to pump up the air chamber once it ran down. Pretty cool piece of history. I guess the natives offered all kinds of stuff to L&C to try and get them to trade that rifle away.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Should be reposted everywhere under the heading,
The Revolutionary Assault weapon the Democrats would try to ban today!

Does it have a high-capacity magazine? Got it!

Is it capable of firing 22 aimed shots in a minute? Got it!

Is it a military weapon? Got it!

Was it manufactured during the American Revolutionary War? Got it!

 

[boogerhook]

You know, I'm not necessarily sure the "keep at bay a tyrannical government" is the original intent of the 2A...

It was the balance between individual states and the federal government. Anti-federalists were worried that the latter could oppress them, both individual states and individual persons. That's why it took Madison's proposal to add the Bill of Rights before the Constitution was ratified.

Here is a good article on the history
<broken link removed>

 

[Stomper]

It was the balance between individual states and the federal government. Anti-federalists were worried that the latter could oppress them, both individual states and individual persons. That's why it took Madison's proposal to add the Bill of Rights before the Constitution was ratified.

Here is a good article on the history
<broken link removed>

DAM!!! That is an EXCELLENT read! I have that one saved to my files.

 

[dobeman]

It was the balance between individual states and the federal government. Anti-federalists were worried that the latter could oppress them, both individual states and individual persons. That's why it took Madison's proposal to add the Bill of Rights before the Constitution was ratified.

Here is a good article on the history
<broken link removed>

still reading, but his caught my eye:

Because the people controlled the House of Representatives and the Senate, and Congress controlled the purse, the people were given an effective check against the dangers of a standing army.​

Ha. Nominally the people control the House and Senate, but more and more elected members entrench themselves into power for many many years and do what they want to do. And with fiat money, there is not restraint on spending. The "purse" is the ether with money from thin air. The writers are rolling in their graves.

and...

English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens.​

you say this nowadays, you get called a wackjob wingnut gun nut. A group of armed citizens today try and effect a check on government - will get mowed down by militarized police, and interesting, we very much have a standing army.

 

[Goosebrown]

Specifically addressed in heller. Page 33 IIRC.

In peals when this argument was advanced all 9 justices laughed out loud.

 

[cascadianliberty2012]

Easiest way to defeat that logic: "Do you think you have freedom of speech on the internet or via cell phone? How about do internet news sources have the right to publish what they want?"
- Oh, you do think so? I thought the Founders didn't intend on different technologies.
- I guess your freedom of speech online is protected the same as my right to bear arms with an AR15.
- Checkmate, communist swine.