View Single Post
Old December 20, 2012, 01:22 AM   #3
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,222
Some other replies:

1. The Second Amendment, when conceived, was, in effect, guaranteeing the right of the people to own the most potent military weapons of the time--certainly weapons on par with those in the armories of the best-armed nations of the time. In fact, it was not uncommon for (wealthy) private citizens to own cannons or even warships.

2. The Second Amendment is carefully worded in such a way as to make it clear that its purpose is to insure that the armed citizens could help insure the "security of a free state". Clearly, the authors intended to protect the right of the citizens to arm themselves to the point of being an effective military fighting force.

3. Multi-shot (multi-barrel) firearms were not unheard of during the timeframe that the constitution was penned. There were also breechloaders (such as the Ferguson Rifle) which could enable the user to fire at a rate of perhaps 2 to 3 times greater than the single-shot muzzle-loading muskets. Yet the constitution makes no attempt to exclude such weapons from private hands.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04227 seconds with 7 queries