Liberal Forum

razoo » 16 Jun 2022, 10:19 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 10:19 am

Bullet was invented in 1847. Second Amendment is from 1789. Thus the second amendment only applies to Muskets.

We should fly you back to Washington DC and  give you 5 minutes on LIVE  NATIONAL TV.   
This would be your big chance to address The Senate and   The Supreme Court while you explain to those poor, misguided individuals that The Founding Fathers  only wanted us to have muskets for the rest of time  . 

 

GHETTO » wrote:

24 Jan 1970, 2:20 pm

razoo » 16 Jun 2022, 10:19 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 10:19 am

Bullet was invented in 1847. Second Amendment is from 1789. Thus the second amendment only applies to Muskets.

We should fly you back to Washington DC and  give you 5 minutes on LIVE  NATIONAL TV.   
This would be your big chance to address The Senate and   The Supreme Court while you explain to those poor, misguided individuals that The Founding Fathers  only wanted us to have muskets for the rest of time  . 

 

 

Do I really need to explain it to him/her or should I let it go?  

Huey » 16 Jun 2022, 10:52 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 10:52 am

Do I really need to explain it to him/her or should I let it go?

Which one here  looks like RAZOO to you...?


 

 

GHETTOBLASTER » 16 Jun 2022, 10:56 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 10:56 am

Which one here  looks like RAZOO to you...?

purple hair with glasses.

razoo » 16 Jun 2022, 10:19 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 10:19 am

Bullet was invented in 1847. Second Amendment is from 1789. Thus the second amendment only applies to Muskets.

Please point out where an expiry date is mentioned in the Constitution  . . .  or where it mentions what weapons are covered by it,  cocksucker !

Youssuck big time !

razoo » 16 Jun 2022, 10:19 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 10:19 am

Bullet was invented in 1847. Second Amendment is from 1789. Thus the second amendment only applies to Muskets.

There are several books on the subject, expert.

Try reading a couple pages... You are way off.

GHETTOBLASTER » 16 Jun 2022, 10:56 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 10:56 am

Which one here  looks like RAZOO to you...?

Bottom row, third from the left.

DeezerShoove » 16 Jun 2022, 11:14 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 11:14 am

Bottom row, third from the left.

That was my pick too....

 

 
 

Jantje_Smit » 16 Jun 2022, 11:25 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 11:25 am

That was my pick too....

 

 

I figured the eye make up AND a **** mustache...? 

I know "confused ****" when I see one.

Huey » 16 Jun 2022, 10:52 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 10:52 am

Do I really need to explain it to him/her or should I let it go?

explain it to him. lets go, boy. the founding fathers clearly had no idea of how much warfare would change after ww1. EVERYONE was surprised by that. 

are you gonna tell us that if george washington knew of the future of mechanized warfare it would have NO impact on his philosophy?

if he knew about the future of demographics, it would have NO impact on his philosophy?

those are pretty baseless assumptions.

But then again, im making assumptions about your analysis of this situation, and IM guessing your real thoughts are even stupider than my own. 

explain it.

FOS » 16 Jun 2022, 11:33 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 11:33 am

Huey » 16 Jun 2022, 10:52 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 10:52 am

Do I really need to explain it to him/her or should I let it go?

explain it to him. lets go, boy. the founding fathers clearly had no idea of how much warfare would change after ww1. EVERYONE was surprised by that. 

are you gonna tell us that if george washington knew of the future of mechanized warfare it would have NO impact on his philosophy?

if he knew about the future of demographics, it would have NO impact on his philosophy?

those are pretty baseless assumptions.

But then again, im making assumptions about your analysis of this situation, and IM guessing your real thoughts are even stupider than my own. 

explain it.

 

I want to understand your position.  The OP is insinuating since the only firearm they were aware of was a musket/flintlock type the framers could not fathom any other type of weapon.  We are not talking mechanized warfare.  We are talking about firearms. I don;t give a rat's *** about what you are ranting about. 

Do you agree?  

If so, let's go.  This is gonna be fun!

razoo » 16 Jun 2022, 10:19 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 10:19 am

Bullet was invented in 1847. Second Amendment is from 1789. Thus the second amendment only applies to Muskets.

Nope.  The 2nd Amendment isn't for hunting...it's for protection from tyranny.  aka: democrat party

Firearms must keep pace with modern times.



 

Huey » 16 Jun 2022, 11:37 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 11:37 am

I want to understand your position.  The OP is insinuating since the only firearm they were aware of was a musket/flintlock type the framers could not fathom any other type of weapon.  We are not talking mechanized warfare.  We are talking about firearms. I don;t give a rat's *** about what you are ranting about. 

Do you agree?  

If so, let's go.  This is gonna be fun!

If we were going to extract the meat of what the OP means it would go like this:

during the era of the founding fathers, we highest tech weapon used by the military was basically the musket. Perhaps the cannon...which I am sure you know adam smith argued in favor of legal civilian use (btw it is no longer legal for you to own a cannon)

in the modern era, military tech is not available to the public. so the whole point of the 2nd amendment is already obsolete.

Are you gonna give an f22 to every citizen? or are you going to admit the world has changed?

maybe you should catch up to the modern world.

DeezerShoove » 16 Jun 2022, 11:33 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 11:33 am

I figured the eye make up AND a **** mustache...? 

I know "confused ****" when I see one.

That, and the look in his eyes... like there's not much behind it... the second from the left on the top row was my second choice but the eye shadow clinched it...

 


 

FOS » 16 Jun 2022, 11:42 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 11:42 am

 

If we were going to extract the meat of what the OP means it would go like this:

during the era of the founding fathers, we highest tech weapon used by the military was basically the musket. Perhaps the cannon...which I am sure you know adam smith argued in favor of legal civilian use (btw it is no longer legal for you to own a cannon)

in the modern era, military tech is not available to the public. so the whole point of the 2nd amendment is already obsolete.

Are you gonna give an f22 to every citizen? or are you going to admit the world has changed?

maybe you should catch up to the modern world.

Before you can make this argument you have to reconcile the fact that repeating rifles were available and known about for centuries.  The problem is they could not be mass produced and were expensive.  In 1777 the Continental Congress considered paying for a repeating flintlock.

The Belton flintlock was a repeating flintlock design using superposed loads, conceived by Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, resident Joseph Belton some time prior to 1777. The musket design was offered by Belton to the newly formed Continental Congress in 1777. Belton wrote that the musket could fire eight rounds with one loading,[1] and that he could support his claims "by experimental proof."[2] Belton failed to sell the musket to Congress, and later was unable to sell the design to the British Army a year after the American Revolution.[1] There are no records that indicate that the gun was ever supplied, and it is uncertain if or how exactly the Belton improvement operated.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock

You are incorrect concerning cannons.

If the cannon you want to buy was manufactured before 1898 (i.e., it’s a muzzle loading model), you can do so without regulation. If it’s a “saluting cannon,” it’s also exempt. And if it’s neither a “saluting cannon” nor a pre-1898 model, you need to pay a $200 tax stamp, fill in some forms, wait a bit, and . . . well, that’s it. Cannon are categorized as “destructive devices” under the 1934 National Firearms Act, and they’re legal under federal law and in most states. You may have to jump through a few hoops to get one, but get one you assuredly can.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a ... uy-cannon/

You can buy a tank depending on state and local regulations.  More to come.

 
 

FOS » 16 Jun 2022, 11:42 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 11:42 am

Huey » 16 Jun 2022, 11:37 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 11:37 am

I want to understand your position.  The OP is insinuating since the only firearm they were aware of was a musket/flintlock type the framers could not fathom any other type of weapon.  We are not talking mechanized warfare.  We are talking about firearms. I don;t give a rat's *** about what you are ranting about. 

Do you agree?  

If so, let's go.  This is gonna be fun!

If we were going to extract the meat of what the OP means it would go like this:

during the era of the founding fathers, we highest tech weapon used by the military was basically the musket. Perhaps the cannon...which I am sure you know adam smith argued in favor of legal civilian use (btw it is no longer legal for you to own a cannon)

in the modern era, military tech is not available to the public. so the whole point of the 2nd amendment is already obsolete.

Are you gonna give an f22 to every citizen? or are you going to admit the world has changed?

maybe you should catch up to the modern world.

 

An F22 is not classified as a firearm or arms in that sense.  

Maybe you should catch up on what you are trying to discuss, MENSA.  Come on, impress me.

 

FOS » 16 Jun 2022, 11:42 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 11:42 am

Huey » 16 Jun 2022, 11:37 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 11:37 am

I want to understand your position.  The OP is insinuating since the only firearm they were aware of was a musket/flintlock type the framers could not fathom any other type of weapon.  We are not talking mechanized warfare.  We are talking about firearms. I don;t give a rat's *** about what you are ranting about. 

Do you agree?  

If so, let's go.  This is gonna be fun!

If we were going to extract the meat of what the OP means it would go like this:

during the era of the founding fathers, we highest tech weapon used by the military was basically the musket. Perhaps the cannon...which I am sure you know adam smith argued in favor of legal civilian use (btw it is no longer legal for you to own a cannon)

in the modern era, military tech is not available to the public. so the whole point of the 2nd amendment is already obsolete.

Are you gonna give an f22 to every citizen? or are you going to admit the world has changed?

maybe you should catch up to the modern world.

 

Almost forgot

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. In particular, the federal armories at Springfield, Mass., and Harpers Ferry, Va., were ordered to invent the means of producing firearms with interchangeable parts.

https://fee.org/articles/firearms-techn ... amendment/

The argument that muskets were the only weapons available and that rifles that could fire multiple times were unheard of pure and utter ****. 

Do you think the man credited with being the author of the 2nd Amendment knew what the **** he meant?  

 

Huey » 16 Jun 2022, 11:50 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 11:50 am

Before you can make this argument you have to reconcile the fact that repeating rifles were available and known about for centuries.  The problem is they could not be mass produced and were expensive.  In 1777 the Continental Congress considered paying for a repeating flintlock.

The Belton flintlock was a repeating flintlock design using superposed loads, conceived by Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, resident Joseph Belton some time prior to 1777. The musket design was offered by Belton to the newly formed Continental Congress in 1777. Belton wrote that the musket could fire eight rounds with one loading,[1] and that he could support his claims "by experimental proof."[2] Belton failed to sell the musket to Congress, and later was unable to sell the design to the British Army a year after the American Revolution.[1] There are no records that indicate that the gun was ever supplied, and it is uncertain if or how exactly the Belton improvement operated.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock

You are incorrect concerning cannons.

If the cannon you want to buy was manufactured before 1898 (i.e., it’s a muzzle loading model), you can do so without regulation. If it’s a “saluting cannon,” it’s also exempt. And if it’s neither a “saluting cannon” nor a pre-1898 model, you need to pay a $200 tax stamp, fill in some forms, wait a bit, and . . . well, that’s it. Cannon are categorized as “destructive devices” under the 1934 National Firearms Act, and they’re legal under federal law and in most states. You may have to jump through a few hoops to get one, but get one you assuredly can.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a ... uy-cannon/

You can buy a tank depending on state and local regulations.  More to come.

You are totally ignoring the essence of the issue. Totally ignoring it.

I actually do not care about you access to small arms lol.

The point of the 2nd amendment was based on the fact that a civilian was actually able to own weapons available to the military.

you cant do that anymore. You, sir, cannot buy a nuclear missile.

SHOULD you?

Thats the whole **** question. If you are really going to pretend that the 2nd has some sacred **** meaning to you...maybe you should address the fact that it is a dead letter. Cause it is. If you think your Ar15 is gonna make any **** difference in a civil war, you are delusional. 

address that fact. stop telling us about cannons.

razoo » 16 Jun 2022, 10:19 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 10:19 am

Bullet was invented in 1847. Second Amendment is from 1789. Thus the second amendment only applies to Muskets.

Following that logic, freedom of the press only applies to printed items.  Radio and television broadcast can be censored by the government...the internet can be censored by the government. 
 

razoo » 16 Jun 2022, 10:19 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022, 10:19 am

Bullet was invented in 1847. Second Amendment is from 1789. Thus the second amendment only applies to Muskets.

The amendment only mentions "arms"...which is defined as " weapons and ammunition".  If the founders had wanted to limit it to only those arms that existed at the time of the Constitution, they would have written the amendment to say exactly that.  Since the didn't...it doesn't.