In 1791, that was the Brown Bess, et al....

[The Sage of Main Street]

View attachment 619653

If You Ain't Got a Dagger, You're a Lagger, or a Fagger Like Mick Jagger

I like that supersonic missile the evil Rooskies got even better

 

[fncceo]

If You Ain't Got a Dagger, You're a Lagger, or a Fagger Like Mick Jagger

I like that supersonic missile the evil Rooskies got even better

It's not for The Russkis... it's for those damned neighbors.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Actually, sex, not just marriage, is only between one male and one female. And this is my counter-assault rifle, this is my gun. One is for fighting, the other's for fun.

Unnecessary Shit and Mass Confusion

"Drop your cocks and grab your socks! Reveille! Reveille!"

 

[JGalt]

Wags Wearing Wigs

Your Framer heroes created a Constitution that didn't include the right to bear arms. That was forced in by popular demand after the Constitutional Congress at Philadelphia.

Even so, they saw in advance the need to protect the right to own firearms. This went as far back as the English Bill of Rights in 1689...

"The right for Protestants to bear arms in English history is regarded in English common law as a subordinate auxiliary right of the primary rights to personal security, personal liberty, and private property. According to Sir William Blackstone, "The ... last auxiliary right of the subject ... is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is ... declared by ... statute, and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."[a]

The English Bill of Rights of 1689 emerged from a tempestuous period in English politics during which two issues were major sources of conflict: the authority of the King to govern without the consent of Parliament, and the role of Catholics in a country that was becoming ever more Protestant. Ultimately, the Catholic James II was overthrown in the Glorious Revolution, and his successors, the Protestants William III and Mary II, accepted the conditions that were codified in the Bill. One of the issues the Bill resolved was the authority of the King to disarm his subjects, after King Charles II and James II had disarmed many Protestants that were "suspected or knowne" of disliking the government,[40] and had argued with Parliament over his desire to maintain a standing (or permanent) army.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-42 The bill states that it is acting to restore "ancient rights" trampled upon by James II, though some have argued that the English Bill of Rights created a new right to have arms, which developed out of a duty to have arms.[41] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court did not accept this view, remarking that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the Crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms.[42]

The text of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 includes language protecting the right of Protestants against disarmament by the Crown, stating: "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law."[43] It also contained text that aspired to bind future Parliaments, though under English constitutional law no Parliament can bind any later Parliament.[44]

The statement in the English Bill of Rights concerning the right to bear arms is often quoted only in the passage where it is written as above and not in its full context. In its full context it is clear that the bill was asserting the right of Protestant citizens not to be disarmed by the King without the consent of Parliament and was merely restoring rights to Protestants that the previous King briefly and unlawfully had removed. In its full context it reads:

Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evil Councillors Judges and Ministers employed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom (list of grievances including) ... by causing several good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and employed contrary to Law, (Recital regarding the change of monarch) ... thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation taking into their most serious Consideration the best means for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Ancestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their ancient Rights and Liberties, Declare (list of rights including) ... That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defense suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.[43]

The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one, has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court.[c][d]"

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

 

[JGalt]

View attachment 619653

King of the wild frontier, that Davy Crockett [1] was. Yup. You betcha.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

M16?
M4?

M-16, and not the A1, nor A2

 

[AZrailwhale]

True.

And it’s unfortunate that conservatives refuse to enter into good-faith debate, considering Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, still evolving.

There's nothing to debate. You either support the Second Amendment or you don't. Positions are fixed and aren't going to change.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Even so, they saw in advance the need to protect the right to own firearms. This went as far back as the English Bill of Rights in 1689...

"The right for Protestants to bear arms in English history is regarded in English common law as a subordinate auxiliary right of the primary rights to personal security, personal liberty, and private property. According to Sir William Blackstone, "The ... last auxiliary right of the subject ... is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is ... declared by ... statute, and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."[a]

The English Bill of Rights of 1689 emerged from a tempestuous period in English politics during which two issues were major sources of conflict: the authority of the King to govern without the consent of Parliament, and the role of Catholics in a country that was becoming ever more Protestant. Ultimately, the Catholic James II was overthrown in the Glorious Revolution, and his successors, the Protestants William III and Mary II, accepted the conditions that were codified in the Bill. One of the issues the Bill resolved was the authority of the King to disarm his subjects, after King Charles II and James II had disarmed many Protestants that were "suspected or knowne" of disliking the government,[40] and had argued with Parliament over his desire to maintain a standing (or permanent) army.Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia The bill states that it is acting to restore "ancient rights" trampled upon by James II, though some have argued that the English Bill of Rights created a new right to have arms, which developed out of a duty to have arms.[41] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court did not accept this view, remarking that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the Crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms.[42]

The text of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 includes language protecting the right of Protestants against disarmament by the Crown, stating: "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law."[43] It also contained text that aspired to bind future Parliaments, though under English constitutional law no Parliament can bind any later Parliament.[44]

The statement in the English Bill of Rights concerning the right to bear arms is often quoted only in the passage where it is written as above and not in its full context. In its full context it is clear that the bill was asserting the right of Protestant citizens not to be disarmed by the King without the consent of Parliament and was merely restoring rights to Protestants that the previous King briefly and unlawfully had removed. In its full context it reads:




The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one, has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court.[c][d]"

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

A Republic Is Not Godly; It Is a Godzilla

Your pushy sect wants us to glorify a judicial and legislative document and passively accept its implication that our rights are handed down from above, as if from a Supreme Being. So your clique's Constitution deifies the government as the provider of rights. We, the people, are supposed to feel lucky that we have been thrown this bone by our Masters.

That puts us in the attitude children should have about their parents and is not the attitude that any self-respecting adults should have. Therefore, on important and basic issues like this, the people should legislate through referendums, not the government through its oligarchic clique that had been picked by a forced choice between pre-owned candidates who have an obvious sense of superiority over the majority or they wouldn't believe they have the right to legislate for us and that we have to do what they say.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

King of the wild frontier, that Davy Crockett [1] was. Yup. You betcha.

Hunter Bi-Den's Favorite President

The bipartisan Glowbubblies pounding their chests on the media want us to believe that Yukee comicocrat Zellyjelly is Davy Crockett at the Alamo.
He may be an actor, but he's no John Wayne. He's more like Rip Taylor.

 

[whitehall]

Flintlock firearms were high tech when the 2nd Amendment was written.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Flintlock firearms were high tech when the 2nd Amendment was written.

M'kay.
So?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Said in another topic:



Yes... but no.
The "arms" they referred to in the 2nd amendment were those useful for service in the militia, and protected the rights of the people to own and use those weapon so, among other things, they would have those weapons, should the militia need to be called into service.

In 1791, that was the Brown Bess, et al.
What do you suppose this equates to in 2022?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

True.

And it’s unfortunate that conservatives refuse to enter into good-faith debate, considering Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, still evolving.

You loons don't want a debate you want to pass laws that will make it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms and outright bans some of them. Passing any of these laws is an infringement and unconstitutional. FYI criminals do not give a fuck about laws that's why we call them criminals.