23 Aug 2022 9:20 am
Blackvegetable » 28 Jul 2022, 9:57 am » wrote: ↑I could tell you to pound sand or read my sig...Huey » 28 Jul 2022, 9:54 am » wrote: ↑ If you think there is another "context" by all means post it.
But, in the interest of efficiency -
This is in the context of justifying the civilian possession of weaponry designed for use on the battlefield.
It is a patently absurd argument.
Blackvegetable » 28 Jul 2022, 10:19 am » wrote: ↑Many are the facts, however there is no RATIONAL argument for the promiscuous civilian distribution of weapons designed for combat.Huey » 28 Jul 2022, 10:05 am » wrote: ↑ Facts are facts. Which is why you ignored it.
You got anything on topic?
I can't make it much clearer than that...but then, yesterday you struggled with "YOUR".....Huey » 23 Aug 2022, 9:11 am » wrote: ↑Blackvegetable » 23 Aug 2022, 6:03 am » wrote: ↑This is one remarkably stupid human being.Huey » 28 Jul 2022, 10:00 am » wrote: ↑ James Madison funded development of weapons for the battlefield so in addition civilians can afford them. Plus, the overlying context of the thread is the debunking the myth that framers could only envision muskets so the 2A was about muskets only.
Many weapons of the 1800s were designed for the battlefield. There was no civilian prohibition.
Son, I have been referencing both. Note there is no article posted in the quote you are talking about. That is from today. You lied.