9mm v. .45

Nice red herring Speedy but it doesn't work. By the way, a common citizen could own a cannon in the days of the revolution and the ultimate military weapon was the Brown Bess musket carried by the British soldier. Many Americans also had the same musket. If someone had the money then they could also build a privateer (sanctioned pirate ship) and take to the ocean looking for plunder. If we lived by the standards of 1776 I could finance my own destroyer or frigate with a 5"/54 fore and aft. Want to alter your opinion?
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Have no idea what you mean by a "red herring". Since SCOTUS has upheld MANY laws limiting guns and other weapons in the hands of private citizens, I would say it works. Whether you (or I) agree or disagree with their actions is irrelevant.

A red herring is when you attack an arugment with facts that have very little to do with the actual issue. So if I were to claim that assault weapons were unconstitutional because no one needs high capacity magazines or full auto fire for hunting then that would be a red herring. The original claim that assault weapons are unconstitutional has nothing to do with magazines or hunting but many people have advanced this arugment.

You started by talking about Jefferson and the changes the country has gone through only to latch on to the very popular but silly argument about rocket launchers and nukes. Now my rebuttal was about what was legal to own in the days of Jefferson and on target.

A red herring is when you attack an arugment with facts that have very little to do with the actual issue. So if I were to claim that assault weapons were unconstitutional because no one needs high capacity magazines or full auto fire for hunting then that would be a red herring. The original claim that assault weapons are unconstitutional has nothing to do with magazines or hunting but many people have advanced this arugment.

You started by talking about Jefferson and the changes the country has gone through only to latch on to the very popular but silly argument about rocket launchers and nukes. Now my rebuttal was about what was legal to own in the days of Jefferson and on target. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Jefferson made no qualifications in his statement as to what, if any, restrictions there should be on arms ownership by individuals. Probably had none since what arms there were were simple. Fast forward to today. There are several arms that I would bet even Jefferson would not want in the hands of indivduals for the safety of the majority. But don't get hung up on whether he would or would not. If you call this a silly argument, you are more of an idiot than most people on this forum believe.

I definitely was a different world back then, but the principle stands. Even at the beginning of the greatest country in the world, with the greatest governing document of all time, the Founders knew that one of the most important rights a person had was the right to protect himself from the overreaches of government. They knew that even the system they designed in the Constitution, with all its checks and balances, could be corrupted and turned against the people. It was important to them that the people would be able to strike back at a corrupt government.

Like Benjamin Franklin responded to a question posed upon completing the Constitutional Convention, "What kind of government have you given us?" Franklin replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it." Well, Ben. Sorry. We tried to keep it, but it slipped away while when we weren't looking.

I definitely was a different world back then, but the principle stands. Even at the beginning of the greatest country in the world, with the greatest governing document of all time, the Founders knew that one of the most important rights a person had was the right to protect himself from the overreaches of government. They knew that even the system they designed in the Constitution, with all its checks and balances, could be corrupted and turned against the people. It was important to them that the people would be able to strike back at a corrupt government.

Like Benjamin Franklin responded to a question posed upon completing the Constitutional Convention, "What kind of government have you given us?" Franklin replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it." Well, Ben. Sorry. We tried to keep it, but it slipped away while when we weren't looking. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

We are taking it back...fucking fuckers

Jefferson was a bit of a radical. In fact he was ususally referred to as a Jacobin.