When are people on the left finally going to realize that the language of the 2nd Ammendment is clear in regards to what it was speaking about. The term used was “Arms.” This specifically implies military weaponry suitable for militia use.
The skirmish of 1775 at Lexington & Concord was when the British Army sent troops with the specific purpose to take away “arms” held by the colonists. What they were attempting to seize were “muskets.” At that time a “musket” was a smooth bore weapon that only had ONE use, and that was military. Because it was smoothbore it could be rapidly loaded and fired, but it was very inaccurate. That is why opposing armies lined up to fire at each other at close range.
A “musket” had NO civilian use. In fact civilians used “rifles” that were not smoothbore. A rifle has spiral groves in it that cause the bullet to rotate (like a thrown football) giving it accuracy. A rifle was suitable was hunting and not practical as a weapon because it could not be rapidly loaded, and after a few shots became so fouled with powder it could no longer be loaded without cleaning first.
The point is that a “rifle” was not a “military weapon” at that time and, by the tactics of the day, pretty much useless for conventional warfare. Whereas a “musket” was useless for hunting, and it only served to be used as a “military weapon.”
Now knowing that the drafters of the constitution were reacting to things they suffered under British rule. One can easily realize that when they wrote “right to keep and bear arms” they WERE refering to military type weapons...not hunting equipment.
Also, since a rationale provided in the ammendment, “A well regulated militia...” for this right (both an individual and collective one), it is extremely clear they were talking about weapons of warfare. The ONLY potential (I say potential because I don’t want to argue hardcase) restriction that could be “implied” was that the “arms” would be that suitable for an individual soldier. Therefore, an M16 type weapon would be protected, but I don’t think a howitzer (for individual use) would be...I don’t argue with folks about this because it causes too much discord.
The KEY to me is that an individual is guaranteed the right to keep and bear “military type” arms consistent with the military of the day. The purposes being for individual protection and when called upon by constitutionally allowed or mandated authority, for protection of community, state, & country.
THEY DO NOT CARE.
They are pushing a narrative for their mindless sheep to swallow and regurgitate. Very little chance that any of their sycophants will ever entertain an individual thought of their ow and possibly jeopardize their handouts and freebies.
They want us out of the way so they can take complete control and this is a major stumbling block for them. They can try and pass anything they want...
I WILL NOT COMPLY.
“This specifically implies...”
Now there’s a contradiction in terms if ever I saw one.
***At that time a “musket” was a smooth bore weapon that only had ONE use, and that was military.***
Not so. They were also used as shotguns by militia members. Many of the Kentucky style “rifles” were actually smoothbores. Does that make them a “military style” firearm?
After the Civil War many rifled muskets were de-milled by reaming out the rifling and grinding off the bayonet lug. They were then given or sold to the public, after all, they were PUBLIC PROPERTY.
In the west, the army received shipments of new breach loading rifles. Instead of issuing these to the troops, the commanders ordered them to be given to the settlers heading west as they needed them more than a muzzle loader.
Dang! What you can learn from 50 years of haunting libraries where they have REAL BOOKS!
I would encourage you to word this differently so that you don't confuse the ignorant.
When Paul Revere rode through the countryside, he didn't yell, "The British are coming", he yelled, "The Regulars are coming". By this he meant the "Regular Army" which was commanded by the legitimate central government over the colonies.
Those colonial governments which supported the Militia in their opposition to the Regular Army were in rebellion against the legitimate source of their own governance, their royal charters. Prior to the Declaration of Independence there was no "U.S. Army". The colonists were at war with their own government and all of them engaged in this rebellion were subject to hanging for treason.
Only the proper perspective regarding the rebellious nature of the American Revolution permits a full understanding of the scope of the Second Amendment.