Piers Morgan

[eastcat]

I'm so pro constitution and 2nd amendment that i think every citizen in the US should be allowed, maybe even required, to own and use a musket just in case we all have to form a people's army to defend ourselves against an external threat.

The musket was the AR-15 of it's day.

Very valid point.   Unless you're an idiot and just assume no harm will ever come to US citizens as long as we just give up our arms.

Now what's the modern day equivalent to "a well regulated militia"?

What does it matter? The SCOTUS already ruled the 2nd Amendment is an individual right in Heller vs. D.C.

[DQ12]

I'm so pro constitution and 2nd amendment that i think every citizen in the US should be allowed, maybe even required, to own and use a musket just in case we all have to form a people's army to defend ourselves against an external threat.

The musket was the AR-15 of it's day.

Very valid point.   Unless you're an idiot and just assume no harm will ever come to US citizens as long as we just give up our arms.

Now what's the modern day equivalent to "a well regulated militia"?

What does it matter? The SCOTUS already ruled the 2nd Amendment is an individual right in Heller vs. D.C.

What's your point?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I'm so pro constitution and 2nd amendment that i think every citizen in the US should be allowed, maybe even required, to own and use a musket just in case we all have to form a people's army to defend ourselves against an external threat.

The musket was the AR-15 of it's day.

Very valid point.   Unless you're an idiot and just assume no harm will ever come to US citizens as long as we just give up our arms.

Now what's the modern day equivalent to "a well regulated militia"?

What does it matter? The SCOTUS already ruled the 2nd Amendment is an individual right in Heller vs. D.C.

What's your point?

You don't need to be a member of a militia to keep arms.

[DQ12]

Now what's the modern day equivalent to "a well regulated militia"?

What does it matter? The SCOTUS already ruled the 2nd Amendment is an individual right in Heller vs. D.C.

What's your point?

You don't need to be a member of a militia to keep arms.

no one is arguing whether or not it's legal for people to own guns.  i thought we were playing around with what the framers meant by the second amendment.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Now what's the modern day equivalent to "a well regulated militia"?

What does it matter? The SCOTUS already ruled the 2nd Amendment is an individual right in Heller vs. D.C.

What's your point?

You don't need to be a member of a militia to keep arms.

no one is arguing whether or not it's legal for people to own guns.  i thought we were playing around with what the framers meant by the second amendment.

OK how 'bout this, the people need to be armed in order to regulate the militia.

[jtksu]

Now what's the modern day equivalent to "a well regulated militia"?

What does it matter? The SCOTUS already ruled the 2nd Amendment is an individual right in Heller vs. D.C.

What's your point?

You don't need to be a member of a militia to keep arms.

no one is arguing whether or not it's legal for people to own guns.  i thought we were playing around with what the framers meant by the second amendment.

So,  the framers intended the right to bare arms to only include the weapons of the day?  Seems pretty short sighted.

[DQ12]

Now what's the modern day equivalent to "a well regulated militia"?

What does it matter? The SCOTUS already ruled the 2nd Amendment is an individual right in Heller vs. D.C.

What's your point?

You don't need to be a member of a militia to keep arms.

no one is arguing whether or not it's legal for people to own guns.  i thought we were playing around with what the framers meant by the second amendment.

So, the framers intended the right to bare arms to only include the weapons of the day?  Seems pretty short sighted.

well, yeah.

i think it's more likely that they intended to apply the second amendment to weapons that they conceived of rather than intending to apply it to weapons drastically different than anything of which they could conceive. "best" case scenario, guns of the time could kill about 3 guys per minute if each individual shot was lethal and you were mega fast at reloading.  (legal) modern guns can kill, what, 40ish under the same circumstances?  Maybe more?  i really don't know. 

then again, maybe you're right and the framers didn't intend for their to be any limitation on the kinds of arms people should be allowed to bear, but then that means that they wouldn't have any issue with automatic weapons or switch blades or grenade launchers either.  what a pickle.

OK how 'bout this, the people need to be armed in order to regulate the militia.

what?  i was asking that if an AR-15 is the modern day musket, what's the modern day milita? 

[EMAWmeister]

Piers Morgan is a rough ridin' idiot, but so are people who believe that there is a single purpose for civilians to have automatic assault weapons. What a pickle.

[Stupid Fitz]

I'm pretty mad at myself for reading an entire thread about what Piers Morgan thinks.

[jmlynch1]

Only 28th in Gun Homicides!!!!

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

because the the left wing losers in la la land think that gun confiscation will lead to pure peaceful Barry B utopia.

nobody actually thinks that and framing the argument as if people do just muddies the entire conversation up more than it already is

Yes they do, lots of them. These people are so deluded you'd think they grew up in a work camp.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Now what's the modern day equivalent to "a well regulated militia"?

What does it matter? The SCOTUS already ruled the 2nd Amendment is an individual right in Heller vs. D.C.

What's your point?

You don't need to be a member of a militia to keep arms.

no one is arguing whether or not it's legal for people to own guns.  i thought we were playing around with what the framers meant by the second amendment.

So,  the framers intended the right to bare arms to only include the weapons of the day?  Seems pretty short sighted.

Yes, the 2nd amendment is unique in that it was implicitly the only amendment intended to be frozen in time.  Just trying to "unmuddy" the argument. . .

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

OK how 'bout this, the people need to be armed in order to regulate the militia.

what? i was asking that if an AR-15 is the modern day musket, what's the modern day milita?

i thought we were playing around with what the framers meant by the second amendment.

[jtksu]

Piers Morgan is a rough ridin' idiot, but so are people who believe that there is a single purpose for civilians to have automatic assault weapons. What a pickle.

Big difference between semiautomatic and fully automatic dude.  Only one is currently legal.

[eastcat]

Now what's the modern day equivalent to "a well regulated militia"?

What does it matter? The SCOTUS already ruled the 2nd Amendment is an individual right in Heller vs. D.C.

What's your point?

You don't need to be a member of a militia to keep arms.

no one is arguing whether or not it's legal for people to own guns.  i thought we were playing around with what the framers meant by the second amendment.

So, the framers intended the right to bare arms to only include the weapons of the day?  Seems pretty short sighted.

well, yeah.

i think it's more likely that they intended to apply the second amendment to weapons that they conceived of rather than intending to apply it to weapons drastically different than anything of which they could conceive. "best" case scenario, guns of the time could kill about 3 guys per minute if each individual shot was lethal and you were mega fast at reloading.  (legal) modern guns can kill, what, 40ish under the same circumstances?  Maybe more?  i really don't know. 

then again, maybe you're right and the framers didn't intend for their to be any limitation on the kinds of arms people should be allowed to bear, but then that means that they wouldn't have any issue with automatic weapons or switch blades or grenade launchers either.  what a pickle.

OK how 'bout this, the people need to be armed in order to regulate the militia.

what?  i was asking that if an AR-15 is the modern day musket, what's the modern day milita?

People owned private cannons/artillery and mortars during the revolutionary war and war of 1812, not to mention private frigates that had more firepower that many modern navy ships of the time. The founding fathers obviously didn't have problems with the lethality of weapons owned.

The frigate Alliance was the most modern/powerful naval ship in the U.S. navy during the revolutionary war. The continental congress turned around and sold it to some dude on the streets of Philadelphia named Jon Coburn for $28,000 all up (armed) after it was over.

[Dugout DickStone]

I bet Jon Coburn crushed tons of tail.