but I've always wanted to own a Claymore.
Posted on 03/22/2016 3:20:41 PM PDT by Lorianne
“A judge at the time ruled that Caetano’s decision to carry a stun gun was illegal because the Second Amendment right to bear arms only applies to the types of weapons commonly used at the time the amendment was ratified.”
In those days the people had the same arms as the military. I want my M-60!
“it’s china town” err Massachusetts
bttt
The lefties have always trotted out the muzzle-loading flintlock musket thing as what the framer’s intent was regards to firearms and the firearms covered by their intent.
So this idiot judge throws that line into his opinion and figures that if it was upheld, then he will have put into precedent the concept of the firearms available in 1787.
“So under this reasoning, I can carry a loaded flintlock pistol with me anywhere?”
Why limit yourself? Why not a tomahawk and a sword cane?
I do have an authentic 18th Century tomahawk.
Tomahawks and swords are very effective sidearms.
They beat nearly all knives, and they are clearly covered by the Second Amendment.
I have often thought that an effective case for the Second Amendment could be made with a sword.
The lefties have always trotted out the muzzle-loading flintlock musket thing as what the framer’s intent was regards to firearms and the firearms covered by their intent.
So this idiot judge throws that line into his opinion and figures that if it was upheld, then he will have put into precedent the concept of the firearms available in 1787.
The lefties have always trotted out the muzzle-loading flintlock musket thing as what the framer’s intent was regards to firearms and the firearms covered by their intent.
So this idiot judge throws that line into his opinion and figures that if it was upheld, then he will have put into precedent the concept of the firearms available in 1787.
So this idiot judge throws that line into his opinion and figures that if it was upheld, then he will have put into precedent the concept of the firearms available in 1787.
With not a clue that there were multi fire flintlocks at the time and anyone could own a cannon and anything else the military used.
In 1787 private armies were not uncommon.
I’ve never understood the rational that the 2nd amendment only covers the things available in 1787. A firearm still operates on the same principle as it did in 1787. Combustible material ignited in a confined space ejecting a projectile out of a single orifice, where the outside diameter of the projectile is only nominally smaller than the inside diameter of the orifice.
the other capacities, such as repeating, semi-automatic, and fully automatic are mechanical systems, external to the initial thermo-mechanics.
True, the only difference between my flintlock and 1911 is the ignition system.
Had the SCOTUS not slapped down the lower court, the case could then be made that no forms of electronic communications would be covered under the 1st Amendment.
Mark
Aiyeeeeeeeee
Go wash your mind out with soap! Lye soap.
I see, the ruling was the test. He failed!
Should be able to carry or drag a mounted cannon also as that was common in that era also.
Just wondering why SCOTUS sent it back for a rehearing as opposed to just ruling on it.
The short-term end result is meaningless because the Masshole politicians will now classify stun-guns as hand guns, subject to the same rules, regulations, requirements, and permit discretion in this “may-carry” state, which means that the average law abiding citizens will not be able to carry a stun gun to protect themselves.
“The short-term end result is meaningless because the Masshole politicians will now classify stun-guns as hand guns, subject to the same rules, regulations, requirements, and permit discretion in this “may-carry” state, which means that the average law abiding citizens will not be able to carry a stun gun to protect themselves.”
That seems a plausible response, but they will have to pass legislation to do it.
Some places, such as New York, have built considerable opposition to an existing knife ban, for example.
Passing more legislation to replace all of these bans with comparable licensing schemes will be difficult.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.