well considering those types of weapons didn't exist and weren't even a possibility for another like 70 years, your argument is pointless and irrelevant. The landscape the founding fathers were in was so different it's stupid to take everything they said literally.
I consider nuclear weapons to be arms, I should be able to have my own nuclear weapon for hunting. The second amendment makes no mention of it, thus I should get one.
well considering those types of weapons didn't exist and weren't even a possibility for another like 70 years
At the time the Second Amendment was ratified, private individuals could, and did, own field artillery pieces and fully-armed and -crewed ships of war.
When it comes to inducing a mass-casualty event, a 32-pounder full of grapeshot is going to beat the hell out of an AR-15.
Edit: an AR-15 bullet masses somewhere around 4 grams, depending, so a 32-pounder would fire roughly the equivalent of 3,500 AR-15 rounds in one shot.
I should be able to have my own nuclear weapon for hunting
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
The second amendment makes no mention of it, thus I should get one.
I strongly suspect than anyone with the financial resources, technical infrastructure, and desire to own a nuclear weapon already has one, laws or no laws.
This completely misses the point at what the issue is. Try to commit any act of mass murder with it and you’ll fail. It’s unreliable, and you won’t be a let to reload. An semi automatic weapon is going to be far more lethal. Also the odds of someone with the know how of how to use one and committing to it is extremely low.
The argument always comes up, well someone could commit an act of mass murder with xyz do limiting firearms won’t do anything. And yet, it absolutely will. Firearms are the path of least resistance by a long shot for the goal. So limit that path and it’s much less likely people will do it with anything else.
Just admit you like your guns more than you want lower murder rates
Depending on what you are considering the defining features of an AR-15 type there was for example a 20 round repeating airgun that was around during the period [0]. Lewis and Clark are believed to have used one.
Although using a fixed magazine, I don't think it would have been too much of a stretch to imagine a detachable one - especially as the air reservoir was.
Energy-wise it's about 10% of a standard 5.56x45mm round, but still apparently quiet effective.
Comments
well considering those types of weapons didn't exist and weren't even a possibility for another like 70 years, your argument is pointless and irrelevant. The landscape the founding fathers were in was so different it's stupid to take everything they said literally.
I consider nuclear weapons to be arms, I should be able to have my own nuclear weapon for hunting. The second amendment makes no mention of it, thus I should get one.
At the time the Second Amendment was ratified, private individuals could, and did, own field artillery pieces and fully-armed and -crewed ships of war.
When it comes to inducing a mass-casualty event, a 32-pounder full of grapeshot is going to beat the hell out of an AR-15.
Edit: an AR-15 bullet masses somewhere around 4 grams, depending, so a 32-pounder would fire roughly the equivalent of 3,500 AR-15 rounds in one shot.
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
I strongly suspect than anyone with the financial resources, technical infrastructure, and desire to own a nuclear weapon already has one, laws or no laws.
This completely misses the point at what the issue is. Try to commit any act of mass murder with it and you’ll fail. It’s unreliable, and you won’t be a let to reload. An semi automatic weapon is going to be far more lethal. Also the odds of someone with the know how of how to use one and committing to it is extremely low.
The argument always comes up, well someone could commit an act of mass murder with xyz do limiting firearms won’t do anything. And yet, it absolutely will. Firearms are the path of least resistance by a long shot for the goal. So limit that path and it’s much less likely people will do it with anything else.
Just admit you like your guns more than you want lower murder rates
During the War of 1812, American civilian mariners used large cannons to commit mass murder against British sailors. It was pretty common at the time.
Depending on what you are considering the defining features of an AR-15 type there was for example a 20 round repeating airgun that was around during the period [0]. Lewis and Clark are believed to have used one.
Although using a fixed magazine, I don't think it would have been too much of a stretch to imagine a detachable one - especially as the air reservoir was.
Energy-wise it's about 10% of a standard 5.56x45mm round, but still apparently quiet effective.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girardoni_air_rifle