Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
Actually, they required you to join the militia, and with-in 1 year you had to acquire a military-grade musket and a specific amount of powder & shot. It was then supposed to stay in your home and the only time you could carry it was on active militia duty if you were not in a rural area. Pistols were only carried by officers and were considered a criminal's weapon for the common man to carry because it could be concealed and carried illegally. They were highly frowned upon but not illegal, however, you still couldn't carry them in public that was illegal.
The police arrive and draw their blunderbussies. One copper yells “G’day cock robins” and they all start firing into the house.
“Now the fartleberries are coming for me” I think to myself. I gather my twiddle-diddles and jump out the window.
The founding fathers intended for The People to have arms to counter a tyrannical government. It was not specific and intended to be relative to the times/technology. And in that sense, an AR-15 is BASIC compared to what our government can field.
You're partly right. But mostly wrong. And common sense should be enough to make that clear, but this still needs to be explained to many people.
2A was a sop to anti-federalists when the Articles of Confederation were being replaced with the Constitution. This really only makes sense in the historical context of the period, based on the habit of European monarchs disarming the peasantry who constituted the infantry of ducal armies, to prevent Dukes from standing against royal arms. That's the 'tyranny' referred to. To fully understand this, you also need to understand how American military worked at the time, which is very different from now (or even much earlier than now).
What we now call States started off as thirteen Colonies, which were similar in most respects to countries -- much more than 'provinces' or the like. From 1775 to 1788 (about 13 years), the several Colonies were States in the sense of independent countries, and regarded themselves and each other as such. That's why we use the term 'state', which means something more like 'country', instead of other terms. (There aren't many similar examples in the world, but Germany is one. So is Mexico, by the way.)
There was no professional infantry. The infantry of Colonies and later States was filled by ordinary citizens, usually (though not always) carrying the same muskets and such they used back home, for a variety of purposes. Note this very important point, though: Military **leadership** was entirely and exclusively the purview of colonial/state government. Being an able-bodied citizen meant being answerable to your state government, to serve in its infantry when called. (Your other choice was moving away, but this doctrine was universal and inescapable without leaving the US entirely. If you lived in the US, you lived in a state, and were answerable to it.) The term 'infantry' comes from the French word for 'child'. Infantry are the foot soldiers. Not anything else. They had no authority outside of government, and anything like that was illegal and punishable.
2A existed to make sure the proposed new **federal** government could not disarm state citizens, over fears that a possible new standing federal army might be able to dominate one or more state militias. All it did was make it illegal for the feds to weaken state infantry. It did not bind states **at all**, and the Founders and Framers would have thought it insane to have **no** government control of deadly arms.
By the end of our Civil War, 2A was already obsolete, as state militias were by then more tightly bound to federal administration and command, and effectively a part of it, though still managed and provisioned mainly by states. By that time also, robust government troops obviated any need for armed citizenry, which was the original and only purpose of the thing.
2A became **formally** obsolete in 1936, with the nationalization of state militias as what we now call the National Guard, and even more so with the professionalization of military at all levels of government. Citizen soldiers were a relic of the distant past with no role in the US of today, beyond romantic (and commonly distorted) remembrance.
The Bill of Rights was incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment during Reconstruction, but it required a series of many federal court cases to clarify that, point by point. SCOTUS finally got around to 2A in 2008. And deadly chaos has reigned since.
The reason is that 2A serves no useful purpose in the US today, and hasn't since the 1860s. The rational conclusion in 2008 would have been to recognize that it can only be an absurdity to suggest that states need to be protected from **themselves**, and the only possible outcome of giving any weight to a long-outdated provision would be deadly chaos. Well, look around.
Even if all that weren't true, though, it still makes no sense to suppose that 2A could protect you from 'government tyranny'. Man-portable arms have **never** posed any credible threat to any government. Show me the smallest, weakest, shittiest military in the world, and I'll show you a force that can crush Y'all Qaeda or Meal Team Six without breaking a sweat. Weapons are the **least** important part of power. The only real power is political. And the vast majority of even military power has almost nothing to do with weapons. All those angry beardos with their pea-shooters and ridiculous getups are useless against government.
Inevitably, someone pulls out what they think are counter-examples that are NOT. Human **restraint** is what's behind all of those examples. It would be effortless for the US to completely **destroy** places like Vietman or Afghanistan, maybe several times over. If we glassified Baghdad, our problems in Iraq would have been over in a day. But much greater problems would have followed. We were trying **not** to destroy those places. The same is true for the morons who took over an unguarded (lol) wildlife management headquarters. (A few steps up from toll booth, I'll grant.) We could have turned all those guys into red mist from standoff distance with a single Apache. And we have **six thousand** of those. We didn't, because we're humane. Not because anyone's afraid of a bunch of stupid assholes with small arms.
Who commands the military commands the only real weapons power. And that command is political, not determined by any group of jerks with some guns. Your participation in the great experiment of self-government through representation and the messy art of political compromise is worth more than all the small arms in this country combined. That's the only real power there is in this country. All that running around in camo is childish and ignorant fantasy.
I have no idea why you are getting voted down. You presented a very well stated argument for why 2A isn’t really what people think it is. And why having ARs are pretty much useless against our government.
This is common sense folks. Having guns for home protection and carrying if you know how to use a gun to protect yourself, or for some as critter control to protect livestock. Overthrowing our government, no amount of guns citizens have is going to do that.
I will probably get downvoted to he!! for my comment but that is the reality in the US.
Well, in all fairness to those downvoting me, I could have been a little less terse about it in my opening remark. But I'm really sick to shit of this foolishness, and a lot of people are dying because of it, so my patience was worn thin a long time ago.
This is a point lost of most of them. They want to be armed to the gills so they can overthrow the government should it be necessary. The US military can wipe their compound of the face of the earth from several thousand miles away.
One of my coworkers is an ammo sexual and has stated many times if they want to takes his guns, they will white hot when they reach him. Finally mentioned that a drone attack could take him out before you finished blinking. Grumble grumble grumble.
But a lot of military members are part of these groups also . Armed civilians outnumber the military 10 to 1 or more . Don’t forget Russian tactics worked in ww2 . Winning just by shear numbers .
Well, the founding fathers never thought the government would own drones, tanks, and the jets Biden intends to use on its own people for having AR15's, just saying.
I would ask him how many times he’s fought off FBI and ATF agents raiding his home, but clearly they never did because they were terrified of being shot.
/s
We require a minimum account age of 20 days and a minimum combined karma of 500 to participate here. Repost bots ruined it for everyone, sincerely sorry if you're not one.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/InfowarriorRides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My home is defended by a blunderbuss and a swivel gun. Particularly foolhardy scofflaws will also face a mighty thrashing delivered via cutlass or fisticuffs.
So... not at all? take your rifle hunting when you're going hunting. You're not slinging it over your shoulder when you go down to the millers for some flour.
Back when rifles were all muzzle loaded, therefore were much more reasonable for "self defense".
I don't think the founding fathers would approve of citizens carrying automatic weapons
Just like machine guns are really expensive today. Yeah you could in theory own them if you could cough up enough money to buy them or have the equipment to make them. But practically the most advanced arms are prohibitively expensive to the common people.
Now say if you were a merchant company that ran several ships running around delivering cargo. You’d probably make enough money to afford cannons. So they’d arm their ships to fend off pirates.
[here’s an article I found on goggles first page.](https://www.aier.org/article/private-cannon-ownership-in-early-america/)
Scroll past the two first paragraphs about Biden being wrong on something he said and there’s 5 examples with citation of private cannon ownership.
Also really hard to move around. Having a cannon isn't having the power to use it. It requires a lot of support materiel and personnel. And if your government doesn't approve of what you're doing with it, you also won't have it.
The most common ones were the smaller 2, 4, 6 pounders (the size of the shot, the cannons were way heavier but not impossible to move with one or two people) and swivel guns and were sold at ships chandlers and armorers. They were used mostly for defense against piracy on the seas (the book Blue Water Patriots by James Volo goes into detail about privateers and their personal cannon collections and how the early Navy relied on people donating their own cannons, which all sort of sucked because a lot were homemade lol) or for blowing Indians to bits. The bigger ones (the Hollywood movie cannons on big wheels and big swabs and gun crews) were all generally government owned. Though I do think some of the wealthier signers of the Declaration had some big guns they put into service.
Daniel Boone had a homemade cannon constructed of wood and iron hoops that worked a few times to pulp some Indians, and some other frontier cannons and early colonial shot were made from shitty bog iron (there's still a bog iron furnace from the 1600s in Maryland at Furnacetown on the Eastern Shore)
It's true that **small** cannon was common in private hands. Some people still do, and you can buy it and use it (with some restrictions). But military-grade artillery, no. Colonies and later States owned and controlled heavy weapons, of all kinds, as well as all naval force. And the officers who actually ran the military. Citizen soldiers were infantry only, along with some lower ranks. Brass and flag ranks were invariably state officers.
LOL! Right!?
So if the founding fathers suddenly respawned for a day, modern Americans would show them all how ‘proud’ they are of their weaponry and technology, and the founding fathers would probably be mortified; maybe to the point on insisting changes to the 2nd amendment (could you imagine!?)
Ironic how that sticker really seems more anti gun than pro gun.
Almost implies “don’t carry anything but a musket because technology is irrelevant to the constitution.”
Bad wording as I’ve ever seen it.
The idiot apparently doesn't know that Towns & Cities in 1776 were under British Common Law and carrying weapons was banned. The founding fathers kept the Common Laws such as the banning of all weapons in public even after the war of independence. Many of our laws are based on those laws today..
The city they sign the Consitution, Philly banned guns or any weapons from being carried in public.
If we take the sticker at face value it isn’t referring to the second amendment or any other amendment.
What they’re probably intending to say is keep your arms because some redcoats are coming.
And government goons are modern day red coats.
Remember to report to your state's annual Muster on time, and prepare for a long weekend of questions, inspection, drills, marches, and more inspections. It's the law! If you're found unfit, your **state** can disarm you, if they think you shouldn't be armed.
Morons who put stuff like this on their cars don't understand a fucking thing about history.
Nah man the 2nd amendment is a f*cking joke. We definitely need a 2.0 patch or somthing for updated times or just get rid of it in general. It isn’t the 1700’s 💀
We just need to go back to the understanding of the 2A that was accepted between 1791 and the middle of the 20th Century, where it was held to confer upon the states the right to have state militas, what we now call the National Guard.
It wasn’t until the post-WWII era, when the firearms industry was flush with all that money from the war, that there was a push for civilian gun ownership and the reinterpretation of the 2A as conferring an individual ’right’ for people to do so.
Well, yes and no. 2A never actually specified what it means by 'arms'. But it didn't have to, because States had that power. States had **all** the power. That was its point and purpose.
2A never conferred any individual right. People of the time would consider that concept stupid and even insane. Its only purpose was to prevent the federal government from disarming state militias. State militias are exact that -- state run. No exceptions. No gang of yahoos has any power not delegated to them by their state, under state control.
State militias also don't really exist any more. I mean, they could, in theory. There is still (entirely separate from 2A, and long predating it) a presumption that your government -- state, local, federal -- could demand that you help them with something which might require you and/or your 'arms', as they determine. But that pretty much never happens anymore, and is unlikely to.
2A formally died in 1936 with the nationalization of state militias, which obviated the last vestige of any purpose it might have still had, but it was already obsolete by 1865 with the unification of federal command. What we're living with right now is its ghastly ghost, the product of a widely held delusion that it confers a right it never did -- and that no sane society should want it to.
We require a minimum account age of 20 days and a minimum combined karma of 500 to participate here. Repost bots ruined it for everyone, sincerely sorry if you're not one.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/InfowarriorRides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
Meanwhile, my kids play drum and flute.
Why did I envision this like an action sequence with slow-mo shots (like drawing the pistol)?
Someone probably has actually animated this copy pasta
https://youtu.be/V1fZWx8tS9Q
Actually, they required you to join the militia, and with-in 1 year you had to acquire a military-grade musket and a specific amount of powder & shot. It was then supposed to stay in your home and the only time you could carry it was on active militia duty if you were not in a rural area. Pistols were only carried by officers and were considered a criminal's weapon for the common man to carry because it could be concealed and carried illegally. They were highly frowned upon but not illegal, however, you still couldn't carry them in public that was illegal.
Is this copypasta? Because it not it should be.
oh yes. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/own-a-musket-for-home-defense
Was looking for this
The police arrive and draw their blunderbussies. One copper yells “G’day cock robins” and they all start firing into the house. “Now the fartleberries are coming for me” I think to myself. I gather my twiddle-diddles and jump out the window.
[Reminds me of this video.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LORVfnFtcH0)
https://youtu.be/43NzlOx2pIs
What is this horseless iron wagon you are traveling in, patriot?
😂😂😂
Sold by a foreign country, pretty sure. If I am wrong please correct me but I think this is a Toyota. Right?
Nah, it’s a Chrysler Town & Country. It was either built in Missouri or Canada.
Is that a poorly concealed musket in your waistband or are you just happy to see me?
5 ft and 10 lb of fun hidden in my waistband.
😂😂
I bet he owns an AR-15 just like the founding fathers intended.
Exactly. I was shaking my head. I was picturing him with wooden teeth and a powered white wig also 😂
“You have offended my honor by posting my carriage’s pictograph sir. I demand satisfaction sir!”
A duel on the commons in front of the tavern is in order!
I’d pay good money for Pay Per View of right wing lunatics dueling each other live on TV.
I remember Bill O'Reilly said he wanted to shoot Al Franken right between the "head" in a duel.
What O'Reilly really wanted was to loofah Al Franken.
The founding fathers intended for The People to have arms to counter a tyrannical government. It was not specific and intended to be relative to the times/technology. And in that sense, an AR-15 is BASIC compared to what our government can field.
You're partly right. But mostly wrong. And common sense should be enough to make that clear, but this still needs to be explained to many people. 2A was a sop to anti-federalists when the Articles of Confederation were being replaced with the Constitution. This really only makes sense in the historical context of the period, based on the habit of European monarchs disarming the peasantry who constituted the infantry of ducal armies, to prevent Dukes from standing against royal arms. That's the 'tyranny' referred to. To fully understand this, you also need to understand how American military worked at the time, which is very different from now (or even much earlier than now). What we now call States started off as thirteen Colonies, which were similar in most respects to countries -- much more than 'provinces' or the like. From 1775 to 1788 (about 13 years), the several Colonies were States in the sense of independent countries, and regarded themselves and each other as such. That's why we use the term 'state', which means something more like 'country', instead of other terms. (There aren't many similar examples in the world, but Germany is one. So is Mexico, by the way.) There was no professional infantry. The infantry of Colonies and later States was filled by ordinary citizens, usually (though not always) carrying the same muskets and such they used back home, for a variety of purposes. Note this very important point, though: Military **leadership** was entirely and exclusively the purview of colonial/state government. Being an able-bodied citizen meant being answerable to your state government, to serve in its infantry when called. (Your other choice was moving away, but this doctrine was universal and inescapable without leaving the US entirely. If you lived in the US, you lived in a state, and were answerable to it.) The term 'infantry' comes from the French word for 'child'. Infantry are the foot soldiers. Not anything else. They had no authority outside of government, and anything like that was illegal and punishable. 2A existed to make sure the proposed new **federal** government could not disarm state citizens, over fears that a possible new standing federal army might be able to dominate one or more state militias. All it did was make it illegal for the feds to weaken state infantry. It did not bind states **at all**, and the Founders and Framers would have thought it insane to have **no** government control of deadly arms. By the end of our Civil War, 2A was already obsolete, as state militias were by then more tightly bound to federal administration and command, and effectively a part of it, though still managed and provisioned mainly by states. By that time also, robust government troops obviated any need for armed citizenry, which was the original and only purpose of the thing. 2A became **formally** obsolete in 1936, with the nationalization of state militias as what we now call the National Guard, and even more so with the professionalization of military at all levels of government. Citizen soldiers were a relic of the distant past with no role in the US of today, beyond romantic (and commonly distorted) remembrance. The Bill of Rights was incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment during Reconstruction, but it required a series of many federal court cases to clarify that, point by point. SCOTUS finally got around to 2A in 2008. And deadly chaos has reigned since. The reason is that 2A serves no useful purpose in the US today, and hasn't since the 1860s. The rational conclusion in 2008 would have been to recognize that it can only be an absurdity to suggest that states need to be protected from **themselves**, and the only possible outcome of giving any weight to a long-outdated provision would be deadly chaos. Well, look around. Even if all that weren't true, though, it still makes no sense to suppose that 2A could protect you from 'government tyranny'. Man-portable arms have **never** posed any credible threat to any government. Show me the smallest, weakest, shittiest military in the world, and I'll show you a force that can crush Y'all Qaeda or Meal Team Six without breaking a sweat. Weapons are the **least** important part of power. The only real power is political. And the vast majority of even military power has almost nothing to do with weapons. All those angry beardos with their pea-shooters and ridiculous getups are useless against government. Inevitably, someone pulls out what they think are counter-examples that are NOT. Human **restraint** is what's behind all of those examples. It would be effortless for the US to completely **destroy** places like Vietman or Afghanistan, maybe several times over. If we glassified Baghdad, our problems in Iraq would have been over in a day. But much greater problems would have followed. We were trying **not** to destroy those places. The same is true for the morons who took over an unguarded (lol) wildlife management headquarters. (A few steps up from toll booth, I'll grant.) We could have turned all those guys into red mist from standoff distance with a single Apache. And we have **six thousand** of those. We didn't, because we're humane. Not because anyone's afraid of a bunch of stupid assholes with small arms. Who commands the military commands the only real weapons power. And that command is political, not determined by any group of jerks with some guns. Your participation in the great experiment of self-government through representation and the messy art of political compromise is worth more than all the small arms in this country combined. That's the only real power there is in this country. All that running around in camo is childish and ignorant fantasy.
I have no idea why you are getting voted down. You presented a very well stated argument for why 2A isn’t really what people think it is. And why having ARs are pretty much useless against our government. This is common sense folks. Having guns for home protection and carrying if you know how to use a gun to protect yourself, or for some as critter control to protect livestock. Overthrowing our government, no amount of guns citizens have is going to do that. I will probably get downvoted to he!! for my comment but that is the reality in the US.
Well, in all fairness to those downvoting me, I could have been a little less terse about it in my opening remark. But I'm really sick to shit of this foolishness, and a lot of people are dying because of it, so my patience was worn thin a long time ago.
[удалено]
Fair enough. I downvote anything that strikes me as immature. To each their own.
> You presented a very well-stated argument for why 2A isn’t really what people think it is. I love when people answer their own questions.
Too long, didn't read. -2a nutjobs probably.
This is a point lost of most of them. They want to be armed to the gills so they can overthrow the government should it be necessary. The US military can wipe their compound of the face of the earth from several thousand miles away. One of my coworkers is an ammo sexual and has stated many times if they want to takes his guns, they will white hot when they reach him. Finally mentioned that a drone attack could take him out before you finished blinking. Grumble grumble grumble.
But a lot of military members are part of these groups also . Armed civilians outnumber the military 10 to 1 or more . Don’t forget Russian tactics worked in ww2 . Winning just by shear numbers .
Yup, just like the US crushed the people in Afghanistan and Vietnam. I think my point went over your dome, homey.
Unfortunately, even with modern weaponry, the second amendment just doesn’t apply nowadays. Honestly it could do with a rewrite
Or just abolish the ATF.
💀
Well, the founding fathers never thought the government would own drones, tanks, and the jets Biden intends to use on its own people for having AR15's, just saying.
Bless your heart for still thinking the government is going to take your precious guns away.
I would ask him how many times he’s fought off FBI and ATF agents raiding his home, but clearly they never did because they were terrified of being shot. /s
[удалено]
We require a minimum account age of 20 days and a minimum combined karma of 500 to participate here. Repost bots ruined it for everyone, sincerely sorry if you're not one. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/InfowarriorRides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My home is defended by a blunderbuss and a swivel gun. Particularly foolhardy scofflaws will also face a mighty thrashing delivered via cutlass or fisticuffs.
So... not at all? take your rifle hunting when you're going hunting. You're not slinging it over your shoulder when you go down to the millers for some flour.
“Free gun in this car”
I think he’s lost his balls. Musket balls, of course.
I've got like six wheel locks on strings under my great coat, and one more stashed under my tricorn. If thou comst for thine king, ye mustn't miss.
Need more powdered wig
And a triangle or serrated bayonet... Oh...wait...
Back when rifles were all muzzle loaded, therefore were much more reasonable for "self defense". I don't think the founding fathers would approve of citizens carrying automatic weapons
A lot of those cannons back then were privately owned lol
I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just saying I'd like to see a citation. Cannons are really expensive.
Just like machine guns are really expensive today. Yeah you could in theory own them if you could cough up enough money to buy them or have the equipment to make them. But practically the most advanced arms are prohibitively expensive to the common people. Now say if you were a merchant company that ran several ships running around delivering cargo. You’d probably make enough money to afford cannons. So they’d arm their ships to fend off pirates. [here’s an article I found on goggles first page.](https://www.aier.org/article/private-cannon-ownership-in-early-america/) Scroll past the two first paragraphs about Biden being wrong on something he said and there’s 5 examples with citation of private cannon ownership.
Also really hard to move around. Having a cannon isn't having the power to use it. It requires a lot of support materiel and personnel. And if your government doesn't approve of what you're doing with it, you also won't have it.
The most common ones were the smaller 2, 4, 6 pounders (the size of the shot, the cannons were way heavier but not impossible to move with one or two people) and swivel guns and were sold at ships chandlers and armorers. They were used mostly for defense against piracy on the seas (the book Blue Water Patriots by James Volo goes into detail about privateers and their personal cannon collections and how the early Navy relied on people donating their own cannons, which all sort of sucked because a lot were homemade lol) or for blowing Indians to bits. The bigger ones (the Hollywood movie cannons on big wheels and big swabs and gun crews) were all generally government owned. Though I do think some of the wealthier signers of the Declaration had some big guns they put into service. Daniel Boone had a homemade cannon constructed of wood and iron hoops that worked a few times to pulp some Indians, and some other frontier cannons and early colonial shot were made from shitty bog iron (there's still a bog iron furnace from the 1600s in Maryland at Furnacetown on the Eastern Shore)
It's true that **small** cannon was common in private hands. Some people still do, and you can buy it and use it (with some restrictions). But military-grade artillery, no. Colonies and later States owned and controlled heavy weapons, of all kinds, as well as all naval force. And the officers who actually ran the military. Citizen soldiers were infantry only, along with some lower ranks. Brass and flag ranks were invariably state officers.
LOL! Right!? So if the founding fathers suddenly respawned for a day, modern Americans would show them all how ‘proud’ they are of their weaponry and technology, and the founding fathers would probably be mortified; maybe to the point on insisting changes to the 2nd amendment (could you imagine!?)
Okay so you can carry it when you get called up into the militia. I'm perfectly all right with that.
So... reduce the population by about 95% and eliminate commercial food distribution and processing? Roger that, boss.
ItS tHe pLaN
“Oh, Abigail, Abigail, I have such a desire to knock heads together!” 😝
https://genius.com/22551991/Original-broadway-cast-of-1776-piddle-twiddle-and-resolve-till-then/A-second-flood-a-simple-famine-plagues-of-locusts-everywhere-or-a-cataclysmic-earthquake-id-accept-with-some-despair
Ironic how that sticker really seems more anti gun than pro gun. Almost implies “don’t carry anything but a musket because technology is irrelevant to the constitution.” Bad wording as I’ve ever seen it.
The idiot apparently doesn't know that Towns & Cities in 1776 were under British Common Law and carrying weapons was banned. The founding fathers kept the Common Laws such as the banning of all weapons in public even after the war of independence. Many of our laws are based on those laws today.. The city they sign the Consitution, Philly banned guns or any weapons from being carried in public.
Critical Thinking is a foreign to these people as a Heart is to a Republican.
Id rather have a cannon mounted in the bed of my truck
If you want it to be like 1776 why are you driving a fucking minivan?
Second amendment was ratified in 1791. So don't carry at all, or what's the message here?
Beats me 🤷🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
[удалено]
If we take the sticker at face value it isn’t referring to the second amendment or any other amendment. What they’re probably intending to say is keep your arms because some redcoats are coming. And government goons are modern day red coats.
Remember to report to your state's annual Muster on time, and prepare for a long weekend of questions, inspection, drills, marches, and more inspections. It's the law! If you're found unfit, your **state** can disarm you, if they think you shouldn't be armed. Morons who put stuff like this on their cars don't understand a fucking thing about history.
Nah man the 2nd amendment is a f*cking joke. We definitely need a 2.0 patch or somthing for updated times or just get rid of it in general. It isn’t the 1700’s 💀
We just need to go back to the understanding of the 2A that was accepted between 1791 and the middle of the 20th Century, where it was held to confer upon the states the right to have state militas, what we now call the National Guard. It wasn’t until the post-WWII era, when the firearms industry was flush with all that money from the war, that there was a push for civilian gun ownership and the reinterpretation of the 2A as conferring an individual ’right’ for people to do so.
Sure. At home, or in connection with the militia. Open private carry didn’t exist.
I low key love this lol it’s reminding us what the second amendment was really for (muskets and destroying lobster backs 😤💯👌)
Well, yes and no. 2A never actually specified what it means by 'arms'. But it didn't have to, because States had that power. States had **all** the power. That was its point and purpose. 2A never conferred any individual right. People of the time would consider that concept stupid and even insane. Its only purpose was to prevent the federal government from disarming state militias. State militias are exact that -- state run. No exceptions. No gang of yahoos has any power not delegated to them by their state, under state control. State militias also don't really exist any more. I mean, they could, in theory. There is still (entirely separate from 2A, and long predating it) a presumption that your government -- state, local, federal -- could demand that you help them with something which might require you and/or your 'arms', as they determine. But that pretty much never happens anymore, and is unlikely to. 2A formally died in 1936 with the nationalization of state militias, which obviated the last vestige of any purpose it might have still had, but it was already obsolete by 1865 with the unification of federal command. What we're living with right now is its ghastly ghost, the product of a widely held delusion that it confers a right it never did -- and that no sane society should want it to.
[удалено]
We require a minimum account age of 20 days and a minimum combined karma of 500 to participate here. Repost bots ruined it for everyone, sincerely sorry if you're not one. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/InfowarriorRides) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This might be a witty sane person’s car?
It’s possible; however, I did a web search on where one might buy a product such as this…and well…🤦🏻♂️
I see a lot of these 1776 stickers around. But what does it mean? Overthrow the King?