The 2nd amendment wasn’t written when the only guns were muskets!
Scott Laughlin thinks today’s guns don’t qualify as a right. He needs to know HISTORY.
Excepts:
Gun-control advocates often argue that gun-control laws must be more restrictive than the original meaning of the Second Amendment would allow, because modern firearms are so different from the firearms of the late 18th century. This argument is based on ignorance of the history of firearms. It is true that in 1791 the most common firearms were handguns or long guns that had to be reloaded after every shot. But it is not true that repeating arms, which can fire multiple times without reloading, were unimagined in 1791. To the contrary, repeating arms long predate the 1606 founding of the first English colony in America. As of 1791, repeating arms were available but expensive.
One of the men to credit for why repeating arms became much less expensive during the 19th century is James Madison, author of the Second Amendment. During Madison’s presidency (1809-17), Secretary of War James Monroe (who would succeed Madison as president), successfully promoted legislation to foster the development of firearms technology.
What kind of repeating arms were available before 1815, when the Madison-Monroe mass production innovation program began? The state of the art was the Girandoni air rifle, invented around 1779 for Austrian army sharpshooters. Lewis and Clark would carry a Girandoni on their famous expedition, during the Jefferson administration. The Girandoni could shoot 21 or 22 bullets in .46 or .49 caliber without reloading. Ballistically equal to a firearm, a single shot from the Girandoni could penetrate a one-inch wood plank, or take an elk.
In Colonial America, repeating arms were available for people who could afford them, or who were skilled enough to make their own. For example, in September 1722, John Pim of Boston entertained some Indians by demonstrating a firearm he had made. Although “ loaded but once,” it “was discharged eleven times following, with bullets in the space of two minutes each which went through a double door at fifty yards’ distance.”
The American people of 1791 did not have to anticipate the invention of repeating arms, because such arms had been in existence for centuries.
The story has much more information.
Scott Laughlin is media promoting FAKE FACTS. Evidently Dan Brady didn’t know the facts either since he didn’t correct him.
Your 2nd Amendment rights are in jeopardy because of the clueless media.
Did you know the facts?
.
.
.
In an age of Black Lives Matter thugs and Antifa terrorists, I can’t imagine decent people not being armed.
Sure, guns today are different than in the eighteenth century. But that is not relevant to the Second Amendment. The second Amendment is not about the kind of arms and has nothing to do with recreational shooting—or even hunting. It has to do with defending ourselves against the tyranny of our own government.
“Peace through superior fire power” ✌🏻
>
Rebbec is correct, it is an issue with people from Europe being under the thumb of royal and political regimes for centuries. They were wise enough tonot want it to happen here.
I believe there’s a part in the MILITARY OATH to defend against ALL enemies both DOMESTIC and FOREIGN! As for repeating weapons. IF you don’t have them, you are at a SERIOUS disadvantage against ANY weapon, just ask Gen George Armstrong Custer who left his gattling guns behind.. He lost out to natives with bows and arrows and clubs. Maybe we ought to outlaw ball bats on that theory..
Laughlin, facts,,,in the same sentence? Hahahaha!!! Now there is a stretch of imagination.
Scott Laughlin (and the rest of WJBC’s Dem/Socialist stooges) should be limited to shouting out their propaganda on ye olde town square or by hand printed flyers. The founding fathers never thought that such lies could ever be broadcast to the citizens by such modern means. Isn’t that your twisted logic Scott?
The government didn’t have the kind of weapons they have now when our forefathers wrote the second amendment either. Scott seems pro-Hitler and a bit of a Nazi. Taking CITIZEN’s liberties is the story the MSM keeps missing.