Posted on 10/14/2020 8:36:58 AM PDT by PROCON
In his questioning of Amy Coney Barrett regarding an Indiana case about a non-violent felon and his constitutional right to bear arms, Illinois senator Dick Durbin dropped numerous false claims about Chicago gun crimes. But he topped it all off with one of the most egregiously inane arguments used against the private ownership of guns:
When that Second Amendment was written . . . we were talking about the likelihood that a person could purchase a muzzle-loading musket.
Durbin went on to say that the logical conclusion of the “originalist” position on firearms should be that the Founders were referring to flintlock muskets rather than modern “military weapons.” (A purposefully misleading labelling of semi-automatic rifles that Democrats are trying to ban.)
Originalism, of course, isn’t the same as literalism. Even it were, Durbin would be wrong. Because the right to self-defense isn’t predicated on any one specific weapon but a principle. Which is why the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right of individuals to “keep and bear Kentucky rifles” any more than the First Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to “write on parchment paper” or to worship “in Anglican and Presbyterian churches.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
I know some people in New Mexico that are dedicated to their right to bear arms, but would never even dream of voting for a Republican. Maybe this election will be different.
No.
Except maybe to call the patriots racist.
Talk about cognitive dissonance!
Gunowners voting for Democrats. Cats and Dogs living together. Mass hysteria!
Kept trying to cite just a bit but the whole is too applicable to miss.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp
We could carry swords to right? Even knives blades are restricted, and those are arms.
“Talk about cognitive dissonance!”
I’m guessing that they’re stuck on the idea that the Democrats are the Party of the Little Guy. Somehow they wend that into their self-image as rugged individualists. No, it doesn’t make any sense.
No.
The Founders wanted you to own assault rifles (real ones), machine guns, land mines, hand grenades, armed drones and RPGs.
At the time of the founding, the common citizen/farmer owned weapons as deadly as those owned by the military. Read that sentence again gun grabbers. No, the Brown Bess was not better than what your average frontiersman or farmer owned.
The AR-15 is clearly inferior to what the military uses. No, its not a, WEAPON OF WAR!!!!! (he said breathlessly). Its a civilian rifle. It has NEVER been a military rifle. Not one military uses it or ever has.
The original intent of the Founders was that we should have access to the real thing.....M4s, fully automatic submachine guns, etc.
By the way Dick, when the 1st amendment was written the only mass media they had was hand cranked printing presses. So do you think Freedom of Speech should only apply to hand cranked printing presses and not to any of the new communications media invented since then?
See how stupid your argument is?
This is from a canceled TV show called Making History ( 2017)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MrYwribXj4
Sam Adams and John Hancock get brought to the future and go to the gun range.
This is fantastic!!
Did you name them?
Wilma and Betty?
The dims insist that AR’s are weapons of war. So we might ask them what war they were used in?
My father in law had an M 1 Garand. That is a weapon of war but the libs don’t have a problem with that.
Also, I have an e-tool. That is a weapon of war.
crickets from the dims.
A mind numbingly stupid argument.
Dear Dumbass senator,
If you think that the second amendment applies only to muzzle loading, black powder firearms, turn off your computer and television, sit down and write me a letter with quill and ink, give it to a man on a horse to deliver it to me and THEN we can talk about why you are wrong.
“The argument can also be made that If I can afford an F-35 or Apache helicopter, I should be able to have that as well - per the Constitution.”
You could make that argument however those weapons systems contain classified technology. It is reasonable that such technology not fall into the hands of our enemies. Mark Cuban might be able to afford an F35 but I sure wouldn’t want him having one.
No. I don’t have names for my guns. Heaven forbid I scream out the wrong name while shooting.
I do not know where you live, but I live in NC and they are still available.
Go to Armslist.com and go to the classified tab. Then go to your state and city. It will have local private party sellers (and some commercial vendors). AR15s seem to be going for about 10-20% more than this time last year, but then they were plentiful.
If you are willing to build your own (it takes about two hours and a few common tools (pull up instructions from Youtube)), you can assemble a kit from Palmetto Arms for about $635 (stripped lower is about $80+ full kit is $500 +, $30 shipping + FFL transfer $25). I have built more than a few AR15s from Palmetto Arms and have been more than happy.
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.