Posted on 02/10/2015 6:12:13 PM PST by StevenCrowder
Liberals have claimed for years that the 2nd amendment was invented in the times of mere muskets, that it doesn’t apply to today’s weapons! The only problem with that, is that weaponry was far more advanced than leftists realize, and the founding fathers addressed this a LOOOONG time ago.
Watch the only rebuttal to this argument that you’ll ever need to see! ;)
Most Cannons used by the Patriots were Privately owned.
Do Liberals advocate everyone owning a Cannon?
If so, count me in.
Wasn’t it Reagan who outlawed private ownership of full auto for civilians for any machine gun manufactured after 1986? How I wish I had bought the Uzi and S&W sub machine guns I looked at (in 1985). And at the National Gun Day show in Louisville, there was a M60 belt fed for sale for under $4,000.
:D
You mean like this? Gives new meaning to sewing wild oats!
And the 4th amendment doesn't apply to the search and seizure of any technology invented after 1780.
This musket argument is just so very dumb on the surface.
Wow, well done, el Cid Campeador!
I had forgotten that arrogant sneer on Burger’s clock, it’s positively Cuomoesque. Isn’t it fun listening attentively as our betters lecture us on the error of our ways?
The weapon he clutches appears to be a trapdoor Springfield rather than a flintlock. I own examples of both but it’s my M1A that would have most curdled his aristocratic blood.
Viva la libertad!
Ummm, that’s not a case we want to make. Because, contrary to popular opinion, “the media” does not actually favor strict construction of the First Amendment. If they did, McCain-Feingold would have been anathema to them, whereas in fact they were the only ones (besides Democrat politicians, which is hardly a contrasting category) who did enthusiastically favor McCain.The case we want to make is that
The public (not the government, the public) has/have the rights spelled out in the Constitution (and some which are implicit, see the Tenth Amendment). You have the right to freedom of the press - you don’t need a license to own a press and, considering the above argument, you have the right to use any other technology to attempt to propagate your opinions. You have the right to build your own web site, for example (You don’t have a right to post on FR, but that’s because it’s Jim Robinson’s web site and he has the right to give or withhold the privilege of anyone to post here - he, via the Mods, edits the site for Jim’s target audience).
- The provision in Article 1 Section 8 which says
The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .implies that the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution anticipated and favored progress of technology not excluding communications technology and weapons technology.
- The framers and ratifiers of the Constitution also anticipated the possibility that future developments would reveal the need for other provisions in the Constitution - and that the way to adapt to such circumstances is delineated in Article V, “Amendments.”
The logical conclusion of that line of reasoning is, of course, that the FCC is illegitimate since it gives some the privilege to broadcast, but denies that “privilege” to you and me.
Hey Steven. You know something: The powers that are applying the final touches of fascism and government control to this formerly free land, LOVE the argument that “if the second amendment applies only to muskets, that the first amendment applies only to hand-cranked printing presses.”
You see, they have every intention of destroying the first amendment, too.
If you have the money to buy, maintain and feed one be my guest. If you have enough money for that I trust you won’t do something stupid with it.
Very well done, Steven. Yet again.
I know you’re not a, “Gun Person.” You’ve said so in one of your past videos. But, something tells me that you like history.
If you have the time, please check out the book, “That Every Man Be Armed,” by Stephen P Halbrook.
In it, he gives a very extensive and detailed history of the origins of our second amendment. From the Romans, to English Common Law until the mid-eighties.
It’s also available on iTunes in audiobook form.
Have a good one.
Hmmm.... That would require quite a bit of planning.
I will.
And I am a gun owner. Multiple. I’m just not necessarily an “enthusiast.” I enjoy good guns that work well, and shoot on occasion. That’s about the extent of it.
Yes, and that is what this is all about.
Once the FCC can regulate the internet, I foresee they can declare various forms of speech 'obscene' and ban it from the internet. Additionally, I foresee them requiring internet licenses (taxed, of course) to post on the internet, with your license being pulled for violations of speech code.
Anything that can vaguely be construed as anti-gay, anti-Islamic, or disparaging of any liberal politician, would be clear violations.
I guaran-damn-tee you this is where we are going, probably within 2-4 years.
Well the FCC already has SOME control over the internet. Net Neutrality is a pretty complex issue compared to how most people paint it.
What control is that? I think (or thought, if you can show me otherwise) that they had been rebuffed at every turn.
Net Neutrality is a pretty complex issue compared to how most people paint it.
Given OTrauma's penchant for naming things the exact opposite of their intention, I have no doubt.
Book them a gig on Dancing With The Stars.
Dancing the Tyburn Jig.
Did we have a US Army at that time, a standing one?
+1
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.