Barely believable stupidity

[Hawkmoon]

You can't have it one way and not the other just because it's convenient to you.

You can't?

Are you sure?

Are you REALLY sure?

Are you SURE you're really sure?

WAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

[Hawkmoon]

Actually, there's some solid documentation that the Founders envisioned people having a lot more than flintlocks.

In the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, lists, among the other powers of Congress, the power to " . . . grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

Letters of Marque in the 18th century were intended to legitimize privateers to act in a warlike manner against a government's enemies; in other words, the Founders envisioned and allowed for private ownership and operation of warships on the high seas! Much more than mere muskets . . .

An example I have used more than twice.

And let's not forget the militia. Militia units had their own cannon(s). It wasn't unusual, or so I've been given to understand, for the local unit's cannon to have been owned by the wealthiest local land owner, and that same guy was often elected the commanding officer, due in part to his prominence in the community and (perhaps) due in part to the fact that he owned the cannon, and if he got upset he might take his cannon and go home.

[HankB]

. . . if he got upset he might take his cannon and go home.

Funniest line in this thread yet! 

[MikeB]

Even the UK recognized the right to bear arms and the ownership of firearms was not uncommon until 1920.

[K Frame]

Actually, there's some solid documentation that the Founders envisioned people having a lot more than flintlocks.

In the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, lists, among the other powers of Congress, the power to " . . . grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

Letters of Marque in the 18th century were intended to legitimize privateers to act in a warlike manner against a government's enemies; in other words, the Founders envisioned and allowed for private ownership and operation of warships on the high seas! Much more than mere muskets . . .

Perhaps this should be revisited if and when the question of how to deal with pirates in places regular navies aren't interested in intervening. (e.g., offshore from Somalia.)

That's an EXCEPTIONALLY dangerous position to take, and not one that you, I, or anyone else wants to run with.

If Congress has the authority to grant, or NOT TO GRANT, letters of marque, well it just goes to reason that they also have the authority to grant, or NOT TO GRANT, firearms rights under the Second Amendment.

After all, letters of marque were included in the main body of the Constitution, they weren't an obvious afterthought...

And, given the fact that letters of marque haven't been granted since the 1856 Paris Declaration, well, Congress isn't interested in issuing you any Second Amendment rights, either.

[K Frame]

An example I have used more than twice.

And let's not forget the militia. Militia units had their own cannon(s). It wasn't unusual, or so I've been given to understand, for the local unit's cannon to have been owned by the wealthiest local land owner, and that same guy was often elected the commanding officer, due in part to his prominence in the community and (perhaps) due in part to the fact that he owned the cannon, and if he got upset he might take his cannon and go home.

There's been a lot of discussion, research and debate about what the phrase "bear arms" means in the context of the Second Amendment, but when one factors in the text of the US Code, it's pretty evident that the Founders and Framers men single-person portable weapons, not cannons. Not everyone could afford a cannon, and not everyone was expected to provide a cannon as part of their membership in the militia.

However, ALL members of the militia were expected to provide a personal firearm if called up.