If the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to modern weapons

Via Boomstickbiker @Boomstickbiker:


I could see this having potential for some home defense situations but in the more general case I’m going to stick with semi-auto small arms.


4 thoughts on “If the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to modern weapons

  1. If they’re going to drive us to this, I demand a Puckle Gun! (Patented in 1718, it has to be grandfathered into the 2A…) With half-square, half-round bullets in the interests of inclusiveness and diversity, of course.

    And maybe a few teensy – inconsequential really – modern updates … say some components from the Dillon catalog for automated powder and projectile loading … maybe an electric firing system … “period correct” waterwheel as an advancing mechanism …

    Well, I’m off to my workshop for the rest of the day.

  2. Sure, as soon as the liberals drop their iPhones and go back to the Gutenberg press.
    I’ll give up my guns when they give up breathing. equal rights you know.

  3. Double shotted canister helped turn places like Fredricksburg, Antietam, Gettysburg, etc. into the noted killing fields of the the Civil War. Unfortunately muzzle loading cannons are heavy, slow to reload, and require trained crews, but they can be horrifically effective when properly utilized against unprotected infantry, even today. Just because a weapon is old, doesn’t mean it isn’t effective, otherwise knives would have no place in modern warfare.

  4. So what’s more appropriate for a modern house, a field carriage mount like a typical 12-pounder ( https://infogalactic.com/info/Twelve-pound_cannon ), or a ship mount ( like this: https://www.jmelledge.com/sitebuilder/images/FiberglassCannonCarriage129-659×335.jpg )

    I expect something in the four-pounder range would be appropriate for an apartment, and nothing larger than a Napoleon for a suburban house with proper curtilage. A 32-pounder carronade would likely be be overkill, even if you have room an mountings to maneuver it.

Comments are closed.