Posted on Apr 4, 2017
Analysis | Firearms technology and the original meaning of the Second Amendment
1.15K
28
4
9
9
0
Here's a very interesting piece with some pretty cool information, which does effectively shoot down one of the arguments often used against the Second Amendment.
Analysis | Firearms technology and the original meaning of the Second Amendment
Posted from washingtonpost.comPosted in these groups: 
Firearms and Guns
2nd Amendment
Firearms and Guns 2nd Amendment
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
10
10
0
Good read, unfortunately gun control advocates cannot be persuaded by logic.
(10)
(0)
5
5
0
I'll just repost this...
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
(5)
(0)
1
1
0
LTC (Join to see) The first thing I take away from this is how sad it is that Massachusetts has gone from a key location in the founding of our nation to a location known for high taxes and restricted freedoms.
The second thing I take away is amazement that there were repeating arms centuries before I thought they were around.
This is a great article. Unfortunately the old adage "For those who believe no proof is necessary. For those who do not believe, no amount of proof is enough." can be applied. I agree with MAJ (Join to see) that those who advocate gun control will not be persuaded away from their goal. Look at all the evidence showing that gun control laws don't work, yet they still insist more laws are the answer. The only thing this article does is demonstrate that when Amendment 2 was written, the founding fathers had a concept of where firearms were moving, and they still found it to be important enough to protect in the constitution.
My wife is anti gun. She hates them. She respects my enjoyment of firearms, as long as I leave her out of it. We are a perfect example of how it should work. Don't like guns, don't own one. Like guns, go for it. The key is that rights come with responsibilities. It is our right to own a firearm. It is our responsibility to know how to safely operate that firearm.
The second thing I take away is amazement that there were repeating arms centuries before I thought they were around.
This is a great article. Unfortunately the old adage "For those who believe no proof is necessary. For those who do not believe, no amount of proof is enough." can be applied. I agree with MAJ (Join to see) that those who advocate gun control will not be persuaded away from their goal. Look at all the evidence showing that gun control laws don't work, yet they still insist more laws are the answer. The only thing this article does is demonstrate that when Amendment 2 was written, the founding fathers had a concept of where firearms were moving, and they still found it to be important enough to protect in the constitution.
My wife is anti gun. She hates them. She respects my enjoyment of firearms, as long as I leave her out of it. We are a perfect example of how it should work. Don't like guns, don't own one. Like guns, go for it. The key is that rights come with responsibilities. It is our right to own a firearm. It is our responsibility to know how to safely operate that firearm.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google