04-26-2021, 05:40 PM
(04-26-2021, 05:27 PM)Nately120 Wrote: That stills contains a lotta qualifiers the government is supposedly making the call on.
How so?
You addressed a frequently (and erroneous) used argument about the term "well regulated". I pointed out what this was intended to mean. Sure, there is some wiggle room in what "in good working order" entails, but when added to an almost century and a half old decision that flat out declared that the militia is all citizens (although certainly that meant, at that time, only men) of fighting age are the militia.
Now, if you want to get into what the Framers meant by the types of firearm's private citizens could own, this is surprisingly easy to verify, as one need only look at what was legal to own at the time. The standard rifle owned by a private citizen was light years more deadly than the muskets issued to standing armies at that time. So, one can logically conclude that owning a better firearm than a standard infantryman of the time was not only acceptable to the Framers, but preferable.
So, let's move on to the newest inane trope of the anti gun faction, the "weapons of war" talking point. Aside from the facts above, which already defeat that argument, it is a fact that private citizens, if they were wealthy enough, could own a warship armed in exactly the same fashion as those commissioned by the Navy. So, one can again logically infer that if the Framers had zero issue with a private citizen owning a warship, that they wouldn't bat an eye about a man portable rifle.
