The Founder's Intent
High-Capacity-Magazine Bans: Threatened shopkeepers used 30-round magazines to fire warning shots and avoid taking lives. by Clayton E. Cramer
That is what people did before cartridges made guns easy to reload in battle. Pirates boarding ship would carry several pistols, each armed and ready to fire
The 2nd amendment was written right after the time when the US Government (such as it was) was borrowing privately owned cannon for the war effort.
I don't know about the Post, but a 6 pounder with grape seems like it's a lot more dangerous, and the founders were hunky-dorey with civilians owning that combo.
That same 6 pounder, grape shot, and powder are still legal to own today, under federal law.
/johnny
“That ban did no real violence to the 2nd Amendment, so it’s hard to see how constraining the availability of high-tech military knockoffs would do so today.”
Eugene Stoner’s design is well over 50 years old.
And the media nuts think this is high tech?
Not quite. The rate of fire would be less so theoretically the volume would be less. As to when U.S. arms crossed the Rubicon it would be with the invention of repeating firearms. In a photographic portrait of Jesse James taken during the Civil War he is wearing a “guerrilla vest”—a vest with multiple pockets to carry pre-loaded pistol cylinders. Rather than reloading six chambers the combatant would quickly change out the whole cylinder.
It's how they control their slaves.
***armed with a “sporting” version of the US military’s principal assault weapon,***
Does that mean my Remington 03-a3 is more evil than my Remington 700?
I say you morons need to lay off the recreational drugs for a while and locate "a woman's right to choose" in the Constitution. Once you do that, I'll find the individual's right to own black rifles in there and I'll show it to you.
I like the idea of banning high capacity magazines — it’s like Bloomberg’s banning of 16-oz soft drinks. :)
The key question on the scope of the Second Amendment is, “What was it’s intended purpose?” I remember my history prof. in college saying that it appeared the purpose was to assure that American citizens could raise and arm their own militia against an oppressive government gone rogue against those very citizens. So it stands to reason that as the armed ability of the government increases, so should the ability of the citizens. It doesn’t make sense to assume that the sole purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that all citizens could shoot quail for dinner.
Sometimes libs let it slip that their most dangerous weapon is a school administrator.