Riddle Me This

[llowry61]

I keep hearing the anti-gun crowd using the argument that the framers of the constitution did not mean for individuals to have "weapons of war".

This doesn't make sense, what weapons did the military have that the average citizen did not have access to when the constitution was signed?

Tell me if I am wrong here but, the military had flintlock rifles and pistols, right? Same thing the average citizen would have had access to at the time. I am sure if you had the cash someone would have sold you a cannon too.

In my opinion they wanted individuals to have weapons similar to those in authority to keep them in check.

What am I missing here?

 

[grover99]

What you are missing is Absolutely nothing you have the right of it

 

[lihpster]

What you are missing is the fact that logic and reason have little to do with gun control arguments. Fear and ignorance rule the day.

 

[WCCPHD]

The left operates on emotion. We operate on reason.

The gun grabbers never let facts or truth stand in the way of their feelings.

 

[DWalt]

I've heard them say that the Second Amendment applies only to muskets.

 

[Rustyt1953]

Sound familiar?

 

[URIT]

The framers of the Constitution put this issue up front, right behind freedom of speech and assembly, because they wanted the people to never be powerless from those in power.

Now, those in power are doing their best to destroy our rights to speech, assembly, and the ability to defend ourselves, our communities, and our nation.

 

[johngalt]

It's just a made up term design to appeal to the emotions of the undecided. It has no basis in actual history. Back in the day private citizens had artillery and battleships.

 

[bigwheelzip]

Heck, looking at world events today, as part of the well-regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state, then the arms we bear should include a Javelin and a Stinger missile. Or at least an RPG.

Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk

 

[armadillo]

The founding fathers also knew that a bayonet or sword was a necessary "arm." But most places in the USA it is more likely you can legally carry a pistol than a "dirk or dagger."

 

[BigBoy99]

Just another attempt to brain-wash the public into believing that firearms are the cause of the problems. Just like the term "Gun Violence" is being used so frequently by the media to demonize firearms and make them the object which must be controlled. How many times have you caught your guns trying to sneak of the house to commit some crime? Making a total inanimate object the focus, and not the person using it, is the objective. The correct term should be, "Criminals Using Guns to Commit Violence" but do you think that will EVER be see in the media?

 

[steelslaver]

Riddle me this. Why are a bunch of anti gun types all happy because one of the world's worst illegal gun dealers, who sold machine guns, mines, rockets and artillery to various warring fractions, sometimes both sides as well as countries considered to be enemies of this country, was traded for someone who showed no respect for this nation and then was dumb enough to break the law of another country we are on poor terms with by trying to smuggle a drug, that is illegal there, into it.

My riddle is even more confusing isn't it?

 

[Miracle Man]

Just another attempt to brain-wash the public into believing that firearms are the cause of the problems. Just like the term "Gun Violence" is being used so frequently by the media to demonize firearms and make them the object which must be controlled. How many times have you caught your guns trying to sneak of the house to commit some crime? Making a total inanimate object the focus, and not the person using it, is the objective. The correct term should be, "Criminals Using Guns to Commit Violence" but do you think that will EVER be see in the media?

Exactly

If I write you a letter cussing you out is that "pen violence?

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

"Back in the day" private citizens didn't have "battleships", but they could get letters of marque and reprisal. Privateering, anyone ?
The militiaman was expected to provide his own firearm. The one requirement was that it had to be standard caliber, i.e. the .75 of the Brown Bess, he provided the gun, the colony or state issued the ammunition.

 

[Rudi]

C-O-N-T-R-O-L, all about control.

 

[jscheck]

How do I triple "like" Steelslaver's" post???

 

[steelslaver]

Oh, adding to the original riddle, why is it that the same people who do not believe the 2nd should apply to modern guns, believe that the first should apply to TV, radio and the internet when absolutely no forms of electronic communication existed when it was written?`

 

[Rustyt1953]

This is what they are basing their reasoning on;

 

[VictorLouis]

"Back in the day" private citizens didn't have "battleships", but they could get letters of marque and reprisal. Privateering, anyone ?

From what I understand, several DID have armed vessels...the battleship/s of the day. The Letter of Marque was for CYA with our fledgling gov't when privateering acted on the Nation's behalf. Ships or not, folks could and did own cannon/s...the artillery of the day.

 

[steelslaver]

Interestingly enough you can still own cannons. You could even own an 8" Howitzer or 16" Naval gun. Neither accept an assembled cartridge. You must first insert the projectile then the powder charge.