On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Razer <[1]g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
   >
   > On 02/23/2017 05:37 AM, jim bell wrote:
   >
   > Court rules assault weapons are not protected under Constitution
   > [2]http://dailym.ai/2mmUuqG via
   >
   >
   > They aren't. You know why? When the Second Amendment was written, at
   50
   > yards or so, you could literally outrun a musketball. If it didn't
   bounce
   > off your coat.
   You do know that black powder muskets and rifles are *still* used to
   hunt deer and black bear, and elk, right? And that at least the latter
   two usually weigh more than adult humans?
   More to the point, the Second Amendment is all about military weapons.
   Consider that much of the cannon used by the revolutionaries was
   privately owned.
   Get a grip, son - your struggle against reality is showing.
   > Besides, "Your puny AK-47 is useless. So, we need to have at
   > least some of our volunteer resistance show up with Stinger missiles,
   some
   > anti-aircraft batteries, maybe a submarine or two?" I hear Soros has
   a fleet
   > of A-10 Warthogs he might call into service too if you talk to him
   purty.
   You have truly gone off the deep end. Don't think that American
   revolutionaries can't whip up, or don't have, effective weapons beyond
   simple firearms? You might want to think again.
   And, if Soros *does* own some Warthogs, well, more power to him. I wish
   I were rich enough to do so. It's my favorite military aircraft.
   I'll not bother with rebutting the rest of the strawman arguments from
   popehat, but will provide a few quotes from the period before and
   during the ratification of the Constitution:
   No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
            ---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
   Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they
   are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America
   cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the
   people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of
   regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United
   States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no
   laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional;
   for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire
   the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them
   unjust and oppressive.
            ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of
   the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
   I particularly like the following:
   Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that
   we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no
   power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible
   implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he
   unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal
   or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in
   the hands of the people.
            ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
   The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the
   people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some
   rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no
   majority has a right to deprive them of.
            ---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in
   N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.
   [C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his
   most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon
   his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states,
   like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by
   force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
            14 Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De
   Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3.

References

   1. mailto:g2s@riseup.net
   2. http://dailym.ai/2mmUuqG