Notice how the writer couldn’t even say “no weapon at the writing of the second amendment”
(media.communities.win)
Comments (26)
sorted by:
Keep such weapons away from obviously dangerous individuals you say? Stripping transgenders of their Second Amendment rights is a bold move, but I'm sure the author thought this through.
Except even that is wrong: Meet the Chambers Flintlock Machine gun
224 rounds at around 100 rounds per minute in 1792.
It's like one of the weird sports stats you can see on TV made up to make some mediocre player look good. Most career points in day games on Wednesday the first week of April.
And he's talking pure bullshit; there were privately owned and armed commerce ships. With ships cannons. Some had a lot of them, I'd expect a single salvo from a sailing ship would do way more damage than 254 rounds of any normal rifle ammo.
The guy who wrote this is a lying communist, but he did clearly mean "weapons one person can reasonably carry around" when he said "portable weapon".
Considering New York and California haven’t even released their total crime data yet…. Maybe we should look at how much Texas has “diversified” since 1995 and how many “diversity” shootings there were.
You used to be able to buy dynamite and full auto machine guns at hardware stores and there wasn't anything close to today's kind of gun crime.
The country was a lot more White and Christian back then.
Also a lot less medicated and much, much less mentally ill.
Maybe I'm just retarded, but if there are "obviously dangerous individuals" running around, could we focus on them?
Like, it's trivially easy, and always will be, to make mustard gas; an obviously dangerous individual could setup a simple gas factory and place it in the ventilation system of a school and not even get caught.
Maybe we should focus less on the "how" of these events and start considering the "why".
Of course we can't focus on them. First of all the DNC and their various operatives spent decades trying to abolish asylums and put blood hungering maniacs on the streets. And secondly they'd lose their core demographics, criminals and crazies.
If they werent portable how did they get ported around?
Full Atlantic article here
internet didn't exist when they wrote the first amendment, so shut the fuck up journalist you have no free speech.
Well if they want me to own a cannon with grape shot, then tally ho lads!
They know that's not popular enough to get the required votes.
Rather than taking this as an indication that perhaps they should reconsider, though, these people are fundamentally dishonest and so instead seek to achieve their objectives by deception.
Plus, Democrats deliberately milk these platforms with the intent to never actually deliver on the objective. I expect the idea is that they'd actually lose voter support and "enthusiasm" if they actually delivered, which is both fucked up and... potentially accurate.
The executive branch is becoming so powerful that at some point, some future president will simply issue an executive order that the 2nd Amendment is nullified. The media will proclaim unanimous public support and Big Tech will "partner with law enforcement" to make sure that any dissenters are identified and dealt with.
That's basically what the Supreme Court does anyway. Even though I like Thomas & Alito, no one should have any respect for the SC. Kavanaugh and ACB are weaklings and disappointments. Roberts is a real traitorous diddler. And then there's the Lefties.