"Because the musket of 1791 requires so many complex coordinated steps to fire it, one cannot easily shoot someone on impulse or by accident.... "By contrast, modern firearms can be discharged by a flick of a finger, killing people by accident and impulse.... A gunman with an easily purchased civilian assault rifle with a high capacity magazine can fire 12-15 times a minute, and keep going 100 times without reloading, and even a highly trained 'good guy with a gun' can do little to stop him, as we’ve seen in Orlando. "Would the Founding Fathers have written something different if they could have imagined modern weapons? If they knew their words are behind the statistics that Americans are ten times more likely to be killed by guns than people of every other developed country?.... "The Founding Fathers created our constitution in 1789 in part in order to 'insure domestic tranquility,' after declaring our independence to protect 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'.... "This is why the sight of guns destroys my domestic tranquility.... "These days, the First and Second Amendments are clearly in conflict. Our nation was founded on the right to domestic tranquility, and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Ten times the gun deaths of every other developed country cannot be what our Founders had in mind when they imagined a peaceful society. "Living in a world where everyone is increasingly armed takes away all those rights, and puts us into a domestic war-zone not of our choosing. The Founders put the First Amendment before the Second Amendment. Let’s take back our domestic tranquility and our First Amendment right to peaceful assembly." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-bartick/reclaim-our-domestic-tran_b_10690346.html How can widespread gun violence be in harmony with the principles that America was founded on?
that's really silly and is another attempt by gun banners trying to pretend that the second amendment really doesn't mean what it means. Your anti gun rants are beyond disingenuous. You don't have a right to be free of thoughts or sights that upset your sense of "tranquility". that some snowflake is upset that others own guns is a good reason to buy more guns and use them in proper ways. only a hater of our freedom could claim that there is a conflict between the two amendments. BTW it was easy for the founders to contemplate a firearm that shot at a more rapid pace than the ones they used. Just like I, someone who has been to the Indy 500 several times, can contemplate race cars going 300 MPH. what I doubt the founders contemplated were treasonous leftwing gun banners who are afraid of honest men being armed
BTW the person who wrote that nonsense quoted in the first post has no background nor training in constitutional law or legal history. She's an anti gun doctor from an extremely anti gun organization who is as qualified to discuss constitutional amendments as say I, an attorney trained in constitutional law, is to discuss the development of a Herpes vaccine. she tells several lies-you cannot buy a modern "civilian assault rifle" these days since none made after May 19, 1986 can be purchased by private citizens and claiming someone with such a weapon cannot be stopped by a good guy with a gun is just a plain lie
I have a doctorate-in law, that blogger apparently has a doctorate in medicine. I don't pretend to be an expert on medicine. No one would take an article I wrote about medicine seriously -save perhaps a discussion on how to defend a medical malpractice case (which most likely gives me far more expertise on medicine than that twit has on constitutional law). why people think medical doctors should be seen as experts in constitutional law is beyond hilarious. and given there are so many lies in her article, she should be the target of some serious derision
One doesn't need a law degree to understand one's rights and to argue that they not be violated (and anyone can claim to have such a degree).
However, his posts show he does. (Turtledude) I do not need a Law Degree to know Galileo does not understand Rights as they relate to individuals, Firearms and The second Amendment.
Has this ever happened? BTW, here's 24 aimed shots in 16 seconds Anecdote =/= data. "Would they have written the 4th Amendment differently if they could imagine computers and child porn?" BTW, they were aware of advanced weaponry: Pepperbox revolver, 1780 Girandoni 20 shot repeating rifle, 1780 Cardiff superposed musket, 1682 Belton repeating flintlock, 1777 Puckle gun, 1718 Can we then ban anything that violates anyone's own version of their domestic tranquility?
she clearly has no clue what the first amendment says or the second amendment says. plus she lies about "assault rifles". she is thus but a liar and a fool. Exercising second amendment rights in no way interferes with any other proper rights. You don't have a right to be free from stuff that causes you to wet your pants because you have a mental illness called hoplophobia
well your posts are rants and have no common sense. Your posts are not honest in that your hatred for gun owners is not based on a valid belief that honest gun owners contribute to crime but rather because you don't like the politics of people who support pro gun candidates
It starts with a falsehood on the first sentence. A flintlock musket (or pistol) can be kept cocked and ready to go for a fairly long time (hours at least), and to go from that state to shooting someone takes an instant. (yes, the reloading takes time, but that's a different matter. Impulse or accident can still occur with a flintlock.) Again with the old articles. This one only a year old, but still old.
I liked the flintlock 70 caliber pistols, they could be loaded fairly quickly and kept loaded a very long time if you kept them dry.
And yet you clearly do not understand your rights. You don't have a "right" to feel safe, or to be protected from whatever might "offend" your delicate sensibilities. If you don't like guns, you don't have to own one. Your squeamishness does not equate to any need on my part to alter how I live my life. I own guns, I own them responsibly, and I carry them for personal defense responsibly. I have a right to defend myself from harm and from criminal violence, as do you; but you do NOT have a right to demand I eschew my means of self-defense because you are offended by them. What you do have the right to do is decide, for yourself, if you want to carry a gun for defense or not.
Oh and hey -- the most amusing part of this topic? "Domestic tranquility" refers to controversies between the states, something the Articles of Confederation did not handle very well. The OP is fully oblivious to this.
She wrote "Nearly all of the 13,432 gun violence deaths from 2015 are just from everyday gun owners." Talk about blatant lies and fear mongering.
Does any of the OP posts even matter? The train is headed full steam in the other direction for their fervent hopes and dreams.
You're in the snowflake group. You must be looking in the mirror ( do they let you have one) and imagine everybody thinks like you.
