Posted on 11/05/2007 10:05:28 AM PST by neverdem
Ironic that the same liberals who are so opposed to a standing army should take away the ability of ordinary citizens to resist military rule. They want a military just big enough to oppress the people.
This is said in sarcasm, but it's no joke. It seems that each time a new method of communication is invented, the struggle for freedom takes place all over again. In the case of the Internet, as we should all be aware, the struggle is ongoing, and the final outcome not at all certain.
Spot on, Well said.
They've been doing it since at least the run up to the '94 Assault weapons ban. Not to mention the '68 gun control act, and for the matter the 1934 National Firearms Act, which after all effectively banned, by heavy taxation and regulation, an entire class of firearms, which are still taxed and regulated to this day. Try that with a modern high speed printing press, and you'll find yourself slapped down by the Supreme Court almost before you can turn around. They won't require someone to violate such a law before doing it either.
Thanks for the ping!
Blunderbuss - multiple projectiles, fired with one pull of the trigger, spread over a broad area - common use 1600s
Girandoni Rifle - 20-round semi-automatic .50 caliber, equivalent to modern .45ACP, used by Lewis & Clark - invented 1779
Stoner AR15 - 20-round fully-automatic .223 caliber - officially an antique "relic" having been invented 50 years ago (1957)
Thanks for the pics!
The Clintons' relationship with the Chinese makes this one particularly poignant.
Some 19th Europeans `dueled’ with flint-lock pistols loaded
with a pellet the size of a BB and a very light powder load.
But hey, they could break the skin and cause an infection!
We dueled with shotguns and knives as long as sabers.
Can I mount 20+ cannons on my pontoon boat?
Limit gun ownership to 18th-century weapons
Friday, October 26, 2007 Page: A10
In David M. Wemple's response (letter, Oct. 19) to Lee Deems' previous letter about interpreting the Second Amendment, Wemple states, "When the Bill of Rights was written there was no militia." There also were no automatic guns. Had Uzis and AK-47s existed at the time the amendment was written, I do not believe our forefathers would have been so daft as to give us the Second Amendment. I would be pleased to see the Second Amendment limited in its application to the right to bear only those arms that existed at the time of the writing and to no other. ANITA C. BAYLEY Feura Bush
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.