I Believe In The Right To Own A Gun [Gun Ownership]

@Ferrari21 here you go, one rifle from 1890.

No thanks. I’ll take one from 2019. Let me give you a printing press instead of a laptop. @GoldenWorm

@Ferrari21 the founders didn't have laptops. I'm sure if they did, the amendments would have more text and clarified things a bit

The founders didn’t have AR15s either. The laptop is the latest innovation of the printing press just as the AR15 is the latest innovation of the Kentucky or Pennsylvania rifles. Our Bill of Rights were drafted to allow for innovation. If not, then the 1st Amendment wouldn’t apply to technology today. The 4th Amendment would not apply to your car (they didn’t have those either). @GoldenWorm

@Ferrari21 cc: @GoldenWorm Two late, former Supreme Court Justices. John Paul Stevens [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2147dVYivyo] Former Chief Justice Warren Berger [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eya_k4P-iEo]

Those were their personal legal opinions. There are some justices that have personal opinions on abortion, same sex marriage, universal healthcare, etc. their personal opinions are not the law. Also, they were flat out wrong...@NativeOregonian

@Ferrari21 Keep dreaming Cletus, both former late Chief Justice Warren and late Justice John Paul Stevens were surrounded with Constitutional arguments during their time on the SCOTUS, and were both well versed in Constitutional law. I would say their thoughts on the second amendment would be way more solidly based than you would ever hope for. Until you have studied Constitutional law AT A LAW SCHOOL, and got your specialized law degree in it, AND PRACTICED Constitutional law, your beliefs do NOT mean shit.

No bud you keep dreaming. I practice constitutional law. @NativeOregonian

@Ferrari21 But also do not forget, in DC v. Heller, even Scalia said that the government CAN and SHOULD restrict the types of firearms owned.

Not weapons in ordinary use. AR15s are. A belt fead machine gun isn’t. @NativeOregonian

@Ferrari21 *belt fed 🤦‍♀️

That set up would definitely quality for being outlawed in pretty much every state that isn't NFA.

iPhone. I hate autocorrect. I’m saying the government cannot ban that which is in ordinary use. The AR15 is actually less powerful than most hunting rounds. It is merely the latest innovation in rifling technology. Just think about the Henry Repeater from 1860. It was the best at the time and the army didn’t even buy it. That rifle was a favorite amongst civilians. How about the Winchester 1873? Same story. We can go down the list in firearm history. @NativeOregonian

@Ferrari21 I am actually related to Oliver Fisher Winchester, I am well versed with the history of the repeater, and the company. As for the AR15 in 5.56NATO/.223Rem, the way the bullet tumbles once it hits the human body is what makes it as deadly as the 7.62NATO/.308Win. In ALL reality, no military main battle rifle, or its semiauto version, should EVER be allowed in the hands of civilians.

Every rifle that has ever been made was either designed for military use or was adopted by the military. Your connection to Winchester should remind you of that. Weapons are designed to defend and to kill. You’re not going to make a weapon designed to kill less lethal. If I’m being attacked, I want a round that will stop the attacker immediately. You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe and the 1st Amendment grants us the freedom to express that belief while the 2nd Amendment defends that right. @NativeOregonian

@Ferrari21 Actually, contrary to popular belief, most blood kin to Winchester are actually either full anti gun, or believers in heavy regulations. When the second amendment was writted, firearms were muzzle loaded, and even the most skilled reloader had trouble with more than two loads a minute. As for the first amendment, the right to free speech, peaceful protest, and press, was ONLY for addressing grievances against the government without fear of retaliation. It's really sad that your generation never got real education in schools, that government and civics classes were dropped.

That is not true. Read up on US history. Read the Declaration of Independence, etc. As far as volume of fire, read https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/long-rifle-gun-helped-america-gain-its-independence-33311@NativeOregonian

@Ferrari21 What's not true? Yes, I have read it, even seen Thomas Jefferson's original draft in Philadelphia. As for rate of fire, I have seen contests during re-enactments when I lived in Delaware, the fastest was 13 shots in five minutes.

@Ferrari21 The Puckle Gun - advertised as the world's first machine gun - was patented in 1718. 73 years before the 2A ratified. In 1780, the Girandoni air rifle was developed for the Austrian military. It had a magazine capacity of (22) .46 caliber lead projectiles and was capable of emptying the magazine in 30 seconds shooting each lead ball at 1000 ft. per second. It's an idiotic argument to believe the founders were clueless to technological advances in weaponry. And I have no doubt that 200 years from now (plus or minus), today's modern firearms will be obsolete.