Re: From YOUR cold dead hands
Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 9:58 am
I don't know how that previous reply got posted before I finished, but my apologies to those who read it, there is more.
First off: This (person) is one of the reasons why a standing army was seen as a bad idea by the founders of our nation.
He starts off by excoriating Justice Scalia for not knowing history, and then presents his own revisionist version as the only true version. Maybe he's the one that needs to learn how to read.
And then he wants to limit gun possession with a list that starts "Smoothbore or Rifled muzzle-loading blackpowder muskets. No 7-11 in history has ever been held up with one of these."
Besides the simple fact that by definition a musket of the era in question did not have rifling, that was reserved for rifles, and thus the name, there is also the fact that 7-11s did not exist in that time frame, but my ancestors' family was (mostly) wiped out by Abenaki indians on July 27th 1694, and those Abenakis were armed (by the French) with the latest firearms technology, to wit: muzzle loading long guns, and so many others the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Longley" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYIK4cuWdMw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And then he wants to allow "Double-barrel breech-loading shotguns. Hunting with these is valid." which of course begs the question that the Second Amendment is not exclusively about hunting, although hunting is involved. So why not breech loading rifles? Breech loading rifles existed in the era, albeit not very common.
And then, of course, there is the weapon that we won WWI with: "Bolt-action rifles with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds."
I could, obviously, go on, but proving a liar to be a liar once is enough to impeach anything else he says.
First off: This (person) is one of the reasons why a standing army was seen as a bad idea by the founders of our nation.
He starts off by excoriating Justice Scalia for not knowing history, and then presents his own revisionist version as the only true version. Maybe he's the one that needs to learn how to read.
And then he wants to limit gun possession with a list that starts "Smoothbore or Rifled muzzle-loading blackpowder muskets. No 7-11 in history has ever been held up with one of these."
Besides the simple fact that by definition a musket of the era in question did not have rifling, that was reserved for rifles, and thus the name, there is also the fact that 7-11s did not exist in that time frame, but my ancestors' family was (mostly) wiped out by Abenaki indians on July 27th 1694, and those Abenakis were armed (by the French) with the latest firearms technology, to wit: muzzle loading long guns, and so many others the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Longley" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYIK4cuWdMw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And then he wants to allow "Double-barrel breech-loading shotguns. Hunting with these is valid." which of course begs the question that the Second Amendment is not exclusively about hunting, although hunting is involved. So why not breech loading rifles? Breech loading rifles existed in the era, albeit not very common.
And then, of course, there is the weapon that we won WWI with: "Bolt-action rifles with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds."
I could, obviously, go on, but proving a liar to be a liar once is enough to impeach anything else he says.