Posted on 07/14/2016 8:41:52 AM PDT by C19fan
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.C.) joined other Democrats to call for the reinstatement of the federal assault weapons ban, arguing that the Second Amendment only applies to muskets.
“This is something as a non-lawyer that I have had trouble with from the very beginning. When the framers of our Constitution considered the Second Amendment, they were talking about muskets,” Coleman said during a news conference outside of the Capitol Building on Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
When the framers of our Constitution considered the Second Amendment, they were talking about muskets,
If we really applied the 2nd amendment the way the founders meant then there would be no restrictions what so ever on weapons.
The intent was to have a well armed citizens to both help defend the nations against invasion or to rebel against an unjust government.
If Thomas Jefferson were alive today he’d be building ARs at Monticello in his spare time.
Furthermore — California ammunition regulators take note —freedom of the (Gutenberg hand-operated) press means freedom of the press, not freedom of paper or freedom of ink.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
How can you have a "well regulated" (disciplined) militia nowadays, if all they have is muskets?
To assert that this Amendment authorizes arming the National Guard is absurd on its face.
The War for Independence was ignited when the "state", represented by British military, came to confiscate weapons and ammunition from the farmers west of Boston.
It is absurd to imagine that the Founders, with that memory still fresh in their minds, were prepared to cede their weapons to the control of the state.
Exactly. Her argument might be defensible if the libs had not already gutted the constitution with their “living constitution” concept.
If ignorance were a virtue, she’d be a saint.
Sorry, MZZZ Coleman. They were not talking about muskets. They were talking about the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the means to protect same from over-reaching government. Thus, the people’s right to keep and bear arms must be strictly weighed against the government’s power to abuse and tyranize.
By that logic, I should be able to put mortars and cannons on my 100 ft boat, as privateers were a thing then too.
Correction: this non-lawyer (and non-thinker) is from New Jersey, not North Carolina.
Big shock.
I have no problem with my neighbor keeping his M-777 in his garage along with all the solid shot he wants as long as the powder was stored off-site. That said, he should be liable for any damage caused by the improper storage, transport of use of any HE rounds he might have. A suburban neighborhood is a lousy place for a magazine. I'm sure our HOA would object.
And get you a .50 cal. Hawken Rifle
Just like Jeremiah Johnson.
It will be a Great Time
for All!
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho! God Bless Texas!
People in congress were paid a mere pittance back in colonial times so congress should give back all the money they have stolen from us. Whose faces were on the currency at the time anyway? That is the currency our fools in congress should be paid.
There is a reason that the Bill of Rights is only 462 words long. The writers of the first 10 amendments laid out principles, not specifics. The word "arms" means weaponry including muskets. If they had meant only muskets, they would have said muskets and not arms. In the same manner, the word "press" in the first amendment covers all forms of communication devices, not just those known at the time.
It would fall on her deaf ears, but it keeps the feeble lie from sprouting.
LOL! Nice one, I had heard that line before.
I don’t recall seeing “musket” mentioned anywhere.
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.
