[MeatyMac]

Yeah, I've been seeing a lot of that BS argument lately, I'm sure some of you have too. Well, I remember Justice Scalia addressing this notion in the Heller decision so I went and dug it out of D.C v. Heller and it was better than I remembered it, referencing other case law to refute it. Thought I'd share the quote for the good of the forum and offer it for you to use where need be.

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35—36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." Supreme Court Justice Scalia writing for the majority In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)


MM

 

[KyAggie]

God rest his soul!! We need another like him in a bad way!

 

[ripcord]

I will agree about the muskets if the media agrees to print only on the old-fashioned screw-type, one page at a time press. Fair's fair, right? If some of us have to go back to the 18th century, all of us have to.

 

[Tommo]

Typical anti-gunner argument, full of crap.

 

[TheShooter]

Muskets were the

Assault weapons

of their era.

 

[Mattitude]

There was a case in MA where an abused & stalked woman brandished a stun gun or tazer to ward off an attack and she was arrested. MA threw her in jail because they said that the 2nd Amendment didn't apply because stun weapon weren't available in the 18th century. When the case went to the Supreme Court the lower ruling was thrown out because it was B.S.

 

[Lruss]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun
Lruss

 

[Instructor]

Some apprehension on mentioning it, but it would seem that with the various restrictions, legal definitions of firearms leading to tighter restrictions/ownership, the M1 Garand does not exhibit any of those nasty items some are so concerned about. No vertical pistol grip, no vertical forward grip, no flash hider, less than 10 rounds, non detachable magazine, etc., etc. That being the case, the Garand would be welcome at the local tea parlor, shopping maul, disco club, and no worries about it's lethality or use as an assault rifle.
If you do not have an M1 Garand, suggest you re consider one for they are quite harmless it would seem. Idiocy and madness runs rampant these days.

 

[TheShooter]

Some apprehension on mentioning it, but it would seem that with the various restrictions, legal definitions of firearms leading to tighter restrictions/ownership, the M1 Garand does not exhibit any of those nasty items some are so concerned about. No vertical pistol grip, no vertical forward grip, no flash hider, less than 10 rounds, non detachable magazine, etc., etc. That being the case, the Garand would be welcome at the local tea parlor, shopping maul, disco club, and no worries about it's lethality or use as an assault rifle.
If you do not have an M1 Garand, suggest you re consider one for they are quite harmless it would seem. Idiocy and madness runs rampant these days.

Today it's not an

assault weapon

but tomorrow it will be...

It's on the chopping block to in the long run.

 

[USN14]

We have a 2nd Amendment based largely on the fact that our Founding Fathers saw the need for American citizens to defend itself against a tryrannical government, either foreign or domestic.
In order to stand against a govt army there needs to be some parity in arms. In fact, many of the civilian guns in the hands of our civilian Patriots of the Revolution were superior to the British arms of the time. The musket argument is moronic.

 

[Faronth]

We have a 2nd Amendment based largely on the fact that our Founding Fathers saw the need for American citizens to defend itself against a tryrannical government, either foreign or domestic.
In order to stand against a govt army there needs to be some parity in arms. In fact, many of the civilian guns in the hands of our civilian Patriots of the Revolution were superior to the British arms of the time. The musket argument is moronic.

USN14 is 100% correct. That was the primary reason for the 2nd Amendment.

One should not forget the opening shots of the Revolutionary war were about gun control. IE The British were specifically coming to confiscate arms and munitions to help them impose their brand of tyranny.

 

[ray55classic]

View attachment 83337

 

[racer]

I will agree about the muskets if the media agrees to print only on the old-fashioned screw-type, one page at a time press. Fair's fair, right? If some of us have to go back to the 18th century, all of us have to.

...and drives to work in their "hybrid" buckboards...

 

[Dflag]

.

 

[bustedknuckles]

I don't argue about the Constitution much (I have a copy right next to me now) because anti rights folks have never even read a sentence in it, and I'm a little over the top. I don't worry about them taking more rights, I worry about the ones they've took.
I believe if I've got the money to build an Abrams or a cobra that it'd be well within my rights to do so. Or a mini gun. Infringement. We're infringed already. A tax stamp is infringement.
The world is a huge mess.

 

[brianns]

Garands have a bayonet lug on them. Well mine does at least. LOL1

 

[dsdmmat]

1.Musket(n.)
A species of firearm formerly carried by the infantry of an army.

Replaced by a rifle.

The printing press was replaced by a computer does the 1st amendment not cover electrons?

 

[timrb]

Garands have a bayonet lug on them.

Yes, but that's offset by the fact that they don't have a shoulder thing that goes up.

Tim

 

[jws360]

God rest his soul!! We need another like him in a bad way!

Make that:

"God rest his soul!! We need SEVERAL like him in a bad way!

 

[jws360]

1.Musket(n.)
A species of firearm formerly carried by the infantry of an army.

Replaced by a rifle.

The printing press was replaced by a computer does the 1st amendment not cover electrons?

Of course not! Did the founding fathers anticipate one could print 30 pages a minute anymore than a rifle might hold 30 bullets instead of 1? Did they anticipate communication over distance by unseen magic? No? Yet, strangely, these things and more are protected. Except to the far left, which protects sex with animals or transmogrification, er....transgenderism but not the right to self defense.