Replies

People died from many causes in the 18th century that are routinely cured today. You never address my point, which is that today's "militia weapons" are not more dangerous than the "militia weapons" of 1780, because modern medicine has more than kept up with the wounds produced. Weapons were dangerous in 1780, just as they are today. A lunatic could take a blunderbuss loaded with 100 rusty nails to wipe out a picnic in 1780, just as a lunatic could do so today with an AK-47. Blunderbusses were not outlawed in 1780, and there is no difference when it comes to outlawing semi-auto rifles today. Both could cause heavy casualties in the hands of a killer.

Prior to the French Revolution most "fighting" between armies was just manuevering until someone decided they should surrender. There was little actual bloodshed.

Weapons today are far more destruction unless you believe in devolution. There were very few hits for every round fired today and far fewer for those of two hundred years ago. They were inaccurate above about 20 ft. AW are NOT the equivalent of junk filled blunderbusses in destructive power even considering the highly exaggerated hypothesis you postulate.

Your example is ludicrous as well as false. Even such an attack would not hit many people. I would happily take you on in such a fight. Your body would be lifeless on the ground even before your junk could sail over my head.

Not only that but I have never urged banning AW or blunderbusses or complained that picnics were threatened by them. All I ever said was that the Founders never were confronted with "Assault" weapons.