Skip to main content

View Diary: A Strictly Constructionist Solution (49 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Actually, they knew about rapid fire and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theatre goon

    mass area-effect weapons. They knew about a device called the "Puckle Gun" (Google it) which was kind of a 1770's precursor to the Gatling Gun; they also had a lot of cannon which were privately owned but pledged to serve the early Colonies: Privateers formed a lot of the nascent US "Navy" and those were privately owned ships that had to have their own privately owned cannon to protect themselves from pirates. And 'grapeshot' was far, far worse than a high-capacity magazine.

    Heck, look up "Volley Guns" in general-- the concept had been around for awhile:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    Does this negate arguments for gun control? Not really-- so long as it is remembered that such weapons were organized into the "well regulated militia" while still privately owned. Training and proof of competency, and a way to get in contact if needed = militia.

    •  puckle and volley guns (0+ / 0-)

      do not even come close the level of firepower one person can wield today buy as I said else where that's not really the point

      the point is a jab at the 'strict consitutionalists'

      In the time that I have been given,
      I am what I am

      by duhban on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 08:34:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know what you meant, I just (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        duhban, theatre goon

        have to call into question the validity of the notion that "one person could never be able to wield the power to be able to kill so many people" when they obviously were aware of it.

        Arguments for control can be made, I just believe that this is a poor foundation from which to launch such arguments.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site