monotonous_iterancy
Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2012
- Messages
- 915
Reading about proposed restrictions on black powder made me curious to know if anyone still claims that "only muzzle-loaders" are protected by the 2nd Amendment. I found this article where the author claims that many state militias at the time did not have firearms adequate for military service.
He seems to contend that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the defense of the country, by making sure that the states could arm them adequately.
So he seems to be making a case that military weapons are protected. Though I doubt that is his intention. He seems to claim that handguns aren't military weapons, even though they are.
What do you all make of this article?
http://chronicle.com/article/All-Guns-Are-Not-Created-Equal/136805/
He seems to contend that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the defense of the country, by making sure that the states could arm them adequately.
So he seems to be making a case that military weapons are protected. Though I doubt that is his intention. He seems to claim that handguns aren't military weapons, even though they are.
What do you all make of this article?
http://chronicle.com/article/All-Guns-Are-Not-Created-Equal/136805/
Last edited: