I'm still going to maintain my (recently remade) Tumblr blog, before anyone asks that. Same username. I'm simply curious what questions you all might have for me, since I see people from Reddit and Voat doing this thing.
Tumblr might be pretty different from any of these sights, but it's worth a shot.
I can understand single shot at a time (or at all) simple pistols and rifles, but even revolvers need to get the boot in my book. much less semi-automatic or automatic weapons.
That's what the US founders assumed as single shot weapons. Hell, they assumed flintlocks! They had no way to predict those sorts of engineering advances.
Now I hate to be that guy but, usually when someone has a view like that it stems from a lack of education on the subject (I have plenty of things I don't know about this just happens to be one I am hugely interested in). Usually a lot of media propaganda is used to get these views.
There were already automatic weapons back then, contrary to popular belief. See the Belton Flinklock. Not even just semi-automatic. It was an automatic rifle. Plus cannons were allowed to be carried by private citizens.
Another thing is, in American guns save more lives each year than firearms (Look at the defensive usages of firearms in america) secondly gun crime has been trending downward in america for quite sometime. Where in countries where guns are banned (Australia and the UK) things like rapes, stabbings, and even gun crimes are trending upward.
Think mass shootings are an issue? Mass shootings barely make the statistics here in america, you are talking about a small fraction of the violent crimes. In-fact the terrible city of Detroit had the same amount of murders as america had mass shooting deaths (Same meaning within 5 percentage points)
Point being the war on guns works as well as the war on drugs. It's stupid and everyone winds up upset and things just get worse.
Single shot at a time? I guess you mean black powder rifles?
I find it amazing that for laws such as the second amendment I always hear people claiming of the era in time as to what it is supposed to mean or how I am to interpret it, but when it comes to the 1st no one says shit about things such as Twitter, or Facebook being covered.
The argument of "advancement" is just silly speak for the normal people that are incapable of personal thought.
They knew damn good and well what advancement would happen. These were the smartest men of the time pretty much.
The second amendment is to ensure that we as citizens have a way to defend ourselves of a tyrannical government. You know like the one that the original Americans got away from?
Either way I do things differently than most. I build my own firearms so I don't have serial numbers on them. They don't exist as a gun at a gun store would. I quite like it as well.
See I realized that pretty soon you will have your way, and to me that is just history and inevitable as history repeats itself with government assuming control of it's subjects and the attempted control of revolution.
Thing is I know I can't take the all on, but at least I won't just give up.
I can understand single shot at a time (or at all) simple pistols and rifles, but even revolvers need to get the boot in my book. much less semi-automatic or automatic weapons.
...
Well, I vehemently disagree with that, but you choose cabbage so I guess we can still be friends.
That's what the US founders assumed as single shot weapons. Hell, they assumed flintlocks!
A man named Joseph Belton claimed he had invented a flintlock that could fire 8 rounds in 3-8 seconds, and could get it up to 16 or 20 rounds in 5-16 seconds.
He attempted sell them to the Continental Congress, but after letting him modify a few rifles they ultimately decided it was too expensive.
This was in 1777, almost 10 years before the 2nd Amendment was written.
Edit: there was also the Cookson Repeater, a 9-shot flintlock rifle made in Boston in the 1750s, and Kalthoff repeaters were around Europe in the 1600s.
Oh. Now see I hadn't heard of that.
... Now that I listen to all y'alls arguments and do the research to back it up, I'm actually not sure what my stance on guns is?
It's a difficult subject for me because of my personal history anyway.
Private citizens owned cannons and artillery shells back then. I'm sure they imagined the path that weapons could take, and it really wasn't until the mid 20th century that restrictions on gun ownership started to creep in. I'm not going to pretend to be a constitutional lawyer (since you'll find plenty of blowhards on both ends of the debate claiming the intentions are clear), but at least the history is fairly unambiguous.
What is your stance of firearms?