Posted on 05/19/2022 9:12:04 PM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
Recent events in New York have brought the grim realities of America’s gun violence problem into sharp relief. In both instances the perpetuators took advantage of the nation’s lax gun laws and legally purchased firearms whose lethality would have been unimaginable to the authors of the Second Amendment. The easily modified semi-automatic AR-15 used by the white supremacist shooter who killed ten people in Buffalo on Saturday was two hundred times more lethal than the revolutionary muskets that helped win the American Revolution. This attack came one month after a shooter with a Glock 9-millimeter handgun injured 23 people in a Brooklyn subway. Given these horrific events, it is hard to fathom how the U.S. Supreme Court could be contemplating striking down a century-old New York gun regulation, but based on the oral argument in the case this unthinkable reality seems almost inevitable unless the court comes to its senses, abandons originalist fantasy, and recognizes the long history of gun regulation and enforcement in America, including limits on public carry.
In an eerie foreshadowing of the Brooklyn subway shooting, the Supreme Court debated the theoretical possibility of allowing guns on New York subways in the oral argument of NYSRPA v. Bruen in November. In one notable, and disturbing exchange, Justice Elena Kagan pressed former solicitor general Paul Clement who reluctantly conceded that it might be ok to have such a restriction on the city’s subways. In subsequent colloquy Justice Samuel Alito erroneously suggested that criminals in New York were already widely “packin heat” on the subway, a false claim that New York’s woefully un-prepared solicitor general did not bother to correct when queried.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
What new law would have stopped the shooter?
Armed bystanders might have stopped him.
Notice these things happen in places where the shooter has little fear of being perforated.
Just like free speech, the answer is more, not less.
No, it shows the futility of NY’s strict gun control laws. The subway shooting before it shows the same. NYC’s rising murder rate shows the same.
Given that NY state’s infringement on Americans’ 2nd amendment rights has not even delivered enhanced safety, it really makes it clear that such laws must go.
After every one of these events, they want to take guns away from people who didn’t do it.
I do kinda wonder about that neighborhood, though, that the store felt the need to have an armed guard on the premises. (He actually fired at the creep, but the creep was wearing body armor. Or so we’re told.)
So much wrong with just the excerpt. I guess the author didn’t notice that both these events happened while the draconian laws in NY are in place.
We are the militia.
Is anyone asking Ukrainians to fight Russia using smoothbore muskets?
That’s funny because I’m starting to hear that the shooter was into the Azov nuttsie cult.
“Guns are only dangerous when the nut comes loose”. LStar
Pull numbers out of your a** much, Saul?
How deadly or not that modern arms were in Revolutionary times isn’t the point. The point is that the people had, and have, the recognized right to be as well armed as their servants in the government.
"firearms whose lethality would have been unimaginable to the authors of the Second Amendment"
It is not the Supreme Court’s decision as this article implies. It is the 2nd Amendment and there is a way to change it. But the way to do that is not with a decision of the Court, the Court making law.
Yes, it appears to be a small store, no pharmacy, so the need for a security guard does make one wonder. That said, stores in my area have had to hire security guards in recent years even though this is a very low crime area, nice neighborhoods, etc.
Why? Druggies. The grocery stores have pharmacies that druggies from other areas started targeting. A couple of years ago, a druggie knocked an elderly customer down in the parking lot and snatched her bag from the pharmacy.* It was a shock to all of us. Since then, that store and others nearby have had security guards on duty. For a couple of weeks after that awful incident, I saw open carry guys patrolling the store and parking lot, too. I never saw that before, and at first it was jarring, but this is the “new normal” I guess.
Around the same time, the chain drug store a block away installed bulletproof glass around the pharmacy counter and hired a security guard after a couple of armed robberies by druggies. Such things had been unheard-of around here before.
*Fortunately the lady who got knocked down recovered after a hospital stay.
Yes, that is indeed the point.
At the same time, our military has weapons with way more than 200x the firepower of any citizen’s. If the government wanted to pull out all the stops and had the military on their side...
Blahblahblahblahblahbah everything we believe in only works when everyone does it, just like communism.
How do you explain Article 1, Section 8, of the United States Constitution & American Letter of Marque, 1812, issued by James Madison, {4th POTUS} / carried by Captain Millin of the American privateer Prince of Neufchatel during the War of 1812. " I {James Madison} have Commissioned, and by these presents do commission, the private armed Brig called the Prince Neufchatel of the burden of three hundred & Nineteen tons, or thereabouts, owned by John Ordronaux & Peter E. Trevall of the City & State of New York and Joseph Beylle of Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania Mounting eighteen carriage guns, and navigated by one hundred & twenty nine men, hereby authorizing Nicholas Millin captain, and William Stetson lieutenant of the said Brig and the other officers and crew thereof, to subdue, seize, and take any armed or unarmed British vessel, public or private, which shall be found within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, or elsewhere on the high seas, or within the waters of the British dominions, and such captured vessel, with her apparel, guns, and appertenances, and the goods or effects which shall be found on board the same, together with all the british persons and others who shall be found acting on board, to bring within some port of the United States; and also to retake any vessel, goods, and effects of the people of the United States, which may have been captured by any British armed vessel, in order that proceedings may be had concerning such capture or recapture in due form of law, and as to right and justice shall appertain. " This letter {of Marque} is archived in the Public Record Office in Richmond, Surrey in the UK (High Court of Admiralty HCA 32/1342.)
How about the Puckle gun A manually-operated flintlock revolver patented in 1718, a.k.a. the first named "MACHINE GUN.". What about Pepperbox Revolver(s) were around hundreds of years before the 2nd Amendment. Belton Flintlock (Was offered for sale to the congress of 1776,) Girandom Air Rifle {Not a Musket, but a rifle.} {Known as the "Wind Rifle" in Austria 1780's.} @ 40:07 of the video. Could shoot 20 rounds in less than 30 seconds. Also used during the Napoleonic war's. POTUS Jefferson (the third POTUS from 1801 to 1809,) outfitted {led by Capt. Meriwether} Lewis & {Lieut. William} Clark Expedition with this gun, to explore the Louisiana Purchase and the Pacific Northwest.
The Kalthoff repeater was a type of repeating firearm that was designed by members of the Kalthoff family around 1630, and became the first repeating firearm to be brought into military service.
Cookson Volitional Flintlock Repeater, first made in 1750 in the UK (41 years before the Second Amendment was ratified). The Victoria & Albert Museum in London has a Cookson Gun, dating to 1690.
The Cookson apparently used the Lorenzoni System (first developed in 1680 — 111 years before the Second Amendment was ratified) as its internal mechanism. As with the Kalthoff, the Cookson appears to have been expensive to build and operate, hence it was relegated to a historical footnote instead of taking the world by storm.
While the Founders had heard of the concept of multiple-shot firearms, it wasn't until the idea of interchangeable parts came about as a practical form of technology — in the 1820s — that they became a real possibility.
Lorenzoni repeater: Since a firearm is useless unless it is loaded, gunsmiths were trying to reduce the reloading time as much as possible. One of these inventions was the Lorenzoni repeater. The Lorenzoni repeating system was invented by a gunsmith named Michele Lorenzoni from Florence, Italy around 1660 or so. He used it for both muskets as well as pistols.
I could go on, (naming other weapons) but you get the drift. If You don't use it, (real history) you lose it.
Amazing how the Rats rely on mental illness to shape the future of America.
FU, Rats. You deserve no quarter.
I would suggest the author go into the subway and do a survey of criminals to verify that no-one is “packing heat”.
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.