No civilian in the United States should own a gun that fires 20, or even five, rounds a second. Those are military weapons, period. We are confident that George Washington, James Madison and Benjamin Franklin did not have private ownership of military assault rifles in mind when they signed the U.S. Constitution.
July 11, 2019
Our View: Guns aren’t the whole problem
[What a collection of fail packed into three sentences.
- Their “confidence” is irrelevant to the truth. Determining truth from falsity is difficult. But even the most stupid know that confidence is not a good indicator. Hence, one must conclude they are deliberately lying.
- Revolvers can five, or more, rounds per second. The first revolver was invented in about 1680. So, these lying bozos want to restrict firearm technology to that which existed about 100 years prior to the birth of our nation.
- As SCOTUS pointed out in United States v. Miller 59 S.Ct. 816(1939), military weapons are expressly protected by the 2nd Amendment.
- Washington, Madison, and Franklin did sign the U.S. Constitution. But it did not explicitly address the right to keep and bear arms. Madison was important in drafting and getting the Bill of Rights (and thereby the 2nd Amendment) ratified. It
is claimed Washington did not contribute to the content or express a public
opinion about it. I’m unable to find any indication Franklin was a contributor and he died over a year and a half before it was ratified.
- Regardless of the contribution by the three, they all knew private cannons and warships were used in the revolutionary war. Yet there are no exemptions for protection of them in the Bill of Rights.
The Alexandria Times is either displaying their ignorance and/or deliberately lying to the public. Respond appropriately.—Joe]
Whether they’re parroting lies which were fed to them, or they’re concocting their own lies, they’re still liars. A consumer of lies is himself a liar. It’s a matter of choice in participation.
Sam Colt marketed his five shot, 36 caliber Patterson revolver starting circa 1836, and that was a financial flop. The “rebirth” of Colt firearms was the six shot 44 caliber 1847 Walker revolver.
If we define a revolver as having a single barrel and a self indexing cylinder, then 1836 is probably the date to go with. Certainly not 1860. Colt alone came out with significantly new models in 1836, ’47, ’51, ’55 and ’60. By ’61 of course the lever action rifle, the 19th Century Assault Ridle, “that damned Yankee rifle that could be loaded on Sunday and shot all week”, was well under way.
There were revolvers in existence long before Colt was born. Follow the link to 1680.
There are many references in primary source documents both private and public that remark freemen should be armed. Additionally, men would have armed themselves with state of the art weaponry of the times. Nothing has changed in this regard as you pointed out in the SCOTUS finding. Here is a link to some of the quotes of founders and prominent men of the time: https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers
Thanks for your response to the propagandist rantings of the media.
Many of the founding fathers, Franklin in particular, would have no problem in understanding how a modern rifle operates (such as an AR-15 for instance).
Neither the mechanical operation nor operating theory would be beyond their comprehension. Every basic principle was understood in the 18th century. The roadblocks to manufacturing a variant of a modern rifle in say, 1776 would be in the engineering (mechanical and chemical), not basic theory.
However, the theories that allow the mainstream of modern journalism (Radio, TV and internet, print is a dying hanger on) were well beyond anything available in the 18th century. The scientific knowledge would require several generations of work in basic electrical, RF and electronics theories, and would not be as easily understood by any of those learned men, as those discoveries required a rethinking of the basic building blocks that led to modern communication technology.
So, if you go by the worldview of the Alexandria Times, where the Second Amendment does not apply to modern firearms, then the First most certainly does not apply to Radio, TV or Internet journalism.
Perhaps this is a plot by that paper to make newspapers relevant again and to take out their competion in the other media types? 😉
Re “plot” — well, maybe, but only if the newspaper do their printing with hand-set lead type on manually operated sheet-fed presses. And the paper would have to be rag paper, not pulp paper.
On “understanding the technology”, I think the chemistry would not have been a problem to Franklin’s contemporaries; all the ingredients for smokeless powder were available and the process itself is easy enough. Similarly, the machine tools necessary to do the metalworking were either available or at the very least quite understandable. Making an AR-15 with interchangeable parts would have been a challenge, I suspect; making a hand-fitted one as gunsmiths were used to doing at the time was probably doable. It might be a fun exercise for a historic re-enactment group to undertake.
There’s a neat “alternate history” book by Harry Turtledove, “The Guns of the South”, where time travelers bring Lee’s army a large shipment of AK-47s and ammo. Part of the story talks about the Confederacy’s arsenal people working out the chemistry etc. needed to make their own ammo, something they need to do because their “benefactors” are trying to keep that a secret. In the story, they work it out, and the fact they do seems plausible enough to me.
Great book. I really enjoyed it.
That’s why the commies always seem to forget the second and controlling sentence in the 2A. The right of the people shall not be infringed! Doesn’t matter the weapons system. What matters is that government isn’t allowed to stop you from quiet enjoyment of it. Or bringing it to bear against an enemy.
You have no “constitutional rights”. As Obama, a “constitutional scholar” has said. The constitution is a bill “negative liberties”. He’s right, it only tells politicians what they can, and cannot do. Doesn’t say crap about us.
If that weren’t true. the SCOTUS would not have been able to invent a right to abortion. To them it was one of those, “among these are, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, rights. That we have because were human. (Well, some of us might not be.)
Why are so many people unable to understand that the framers weren’t concerned with the nature of the tools, but were concerned with the nature of men? Tools change over time, but the capacity of men for evil, particularly men in power, does not.
The commie left seeks to disarm us so they can rule us with impunity and without fear of being resisted. That means NO LIE is too big. No falsehood
to preposterous. No abusive misquote or rewriting of historical fact to heinous.
In shore there is NOTHING they won’t do to achieve their goal. The commie left,
like islam are BOTH just like the fictitious terminator…. “They can’t be reasoned with. They don’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear! And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead!”
Miller v US is looking more and more relevant every day. Let’s trot that decision back into public awareness, and emphasize that the 2nd Amendment expressly defends civilian ownership of military grade weaponry.