Subscribe now to get the latest news on guns, gear, gun rights, and personal defense delivered straight to your inbox daily!

Required fields are bold...

Email Address:
First Name:
Zip Code:

Obligatory Letter to the Editor: The Second Amendment is Only for Muskets

revolutionary war musket

(AP Photo/Steven Senne)

In another “now where have we heard this before” moment, the Salt Lake Tribune published a letter to the editor recently about how the Second Amendment is totally outdated. Yes, it’s the “but muskets!” argument again:

When the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, we should remember that a musket could fire one to three or four rounds per minute, requiring the gunman to stop between each shot and reload gunpowder, add a patch and a ball, use the ramrod to clean the barrel, and then seat the round bullet properly. Oh, and fill the flashpan with gunpowder.

We then move briskly to “ARs are assault weapons” portion of our program:

…should it be legal in this day and age that anyone old enough to buy a weapon can flaunt and potentially fire an AR-15 (which fires 45 or more rounds per minute) in a public setting? Or carrying current day arms at a public event? Really, the Second Amendment was not meant for assault weapons.

Finally we inevitably arrive at how all gun owners are really on an ego/control/power trip:

Perhaps the issue for the assault rifle proponents is to possess all that power.

The person who wrote the letter took the time to also mention that James Madison was a slave owner and how that’s why he wanted the Second Amendment to exist. Because of course he did.

Seems legit….



  1. avatar Nanashi says:

    Girandoni rifle. Your argument is invalid.

    1. avatar Missouri_Mule Resident Historian says:

      Puckle gun. The argument is invalid.

      1. avatar Debbie W. says:

        Let’s not forget to factor in Muskets used Black Powder. Every citizen who had a Musket also had Black Powder and bomb making capabilities. And as we all know bombs are known for mass destruction, etc.

        But never mind all of that. Gun Control includes any history illiterate telling you how many rounds you are to have to defend you and yours. Surely such a pathetic history illiterate does realize Gun Control is rooted in racism and genocide. Well pilgrim Gun Control is a racist and nazi based agenda. The democRat Party concocted laws to deny freed slaves their rights to muskets, etc. The democRat Party also concocted laws to deny Black Americas their 2A Rights and used the KKK which was the military wing of the democRat Party to deny and confiscate guns from Black Americans.

        With all its race based atrocities including Gun Control that the democRat Party owns it makes as much sense for a Black American to belong to the democRat Party as it would for a Jew to belong to the nazi party.

        1. avatar G-muny nilka says:

          Stfu with all that racist bs…. slavery NEVER EXISTED THE WAY GHETTO THIEVES SAY IT DID…..F K N LIARS AND LOW IQ ANIMALS

        2. avatar Mercury says:

          Nazi Jews you say?

          Yep. It actually happened. The organization got banned anyway though. No surprise there really.

      2. avatar Randy Jones says:

        What about Thomas Jefferson’s Italian-made Girardoni rifles; a weapon created in 1779. The Germans called it the Windbüchse, or the ‘Wind rifle’. Rifle, as in, not a smooth bore and is said to be quite accurate. These were a removable tube-fed, .46 caliber rifle. The tube held up to 22 rounds that could easily be fired in under 60 seconds. The Girardoni was a single barreled, shoulder fired rifle. Where as the Puckle was a tripod mounted smooth bore. True this was 8 years after the Second Amendment was ratified, but Jefferson was there when it was written and I feel sure he understood what it meant, yet he still personally owned at least two of these rifles. He sent two along with the Lewis and Clark expedition. Lewis purchased one at Harper’s Ferry to take along as well. I just hates it when people gets history wrong, next you know this guy will say that Germany bombed Pearl Harbor or some such nonsense.

        1. avatar John Blutarsky says....The Germans did bomb Pearl Harbor. says:

      3. avatar J says:

        Belton Repeating Flintlock, actually offered to the founders but rejected due to high cost. Argument definitely invalid

      4. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        8th century grenades and flame throwers known as “Greek fire”. Also 18 century grenade launchers, that where hand held. Bayonets of any length mounted on any firearm. It about ARMS. Its not about guns.
        The argument is invalid.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Actually the Bill of Rights is about human nature. The reason it works is that it limits the damage that human nature can inflict when exhibited by individuals in power.

        2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          A man who is not just armed, but well armed, is always a free man.

      5. avatar Jerry Deisenroth says:

        Missouri_Mule Resident Historian is 100% correct.
        The Puckle gun is a 10 shot revolver type of gun, patented in 1718.
        That’s 60 years BEFORE the Constitution was ratified.

      6. avatar Wiregrass says:

        Kaltoff Repeater 1630. The argument is invalid.

    2. avatar drunkEODguy says:

      privately owned corsair/privateer warships with mortars, rockets, cannons, and gunnery teams and on par with professional navies, your argument is invalid.

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        Exactly. The most powerful weapons of the day were fully capable of demolishing port towns with mobile indirect fire, and were owned by private citizens or corporations of private citizens. Even today, they would be considered truly awesome weapons.
        This is the level of armament the founders intended.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          The other day while daydreaming, I had the thought of what it would be like in some sort of sci-fy movie kind of experience and be a British sailor on an 18th century ship of the line that got time warped into the 21st century and had a close encounter with a modern aircraft carrier. The level of mind boggling is hard to comprehend. I guess the moral of the story is that what the founding fathers really couldn’t have envisioned is the massive power of the state, not the individual, 2 centuries later.

          I probably have too much time on my hands…

        2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

          The “musket” argument only makes sense when you ignore the literal intent of the 2nd Amendment. The need for an armed citizenry with the ability to defend again governmental tyranny has not changed. Weapons may change, but historical context of the original intent of our founders has not changed. Implicit in the “shall not be infringed” language of the 2nd. is the idea that an armed citizenry must have have free access to the kinds of “weapons-of-war” that allow it to actually defend against governmental tyranny. Simply put, the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says. Those Ar’s and Ak’s, reviled though they may be by gun control True Believers, are the exact kind of “weapons-of-war” that an armed citizenry needs, should the need arise, to defend itself against tyranny. In essence the 2nd. is about power sharing. Tyranny can’t function unless it has a total monopoly on force. An armed citizenry, sharing power with government, prevents this from happening.

    3. avatar Baldwin says:

      The second amendment says your argument is invalid.

    4. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      The founding fathers could have never imagined the internet when they wrote the 1st Amendment. Argument equally invalid.

      1. avatar Tired of the bs says:

        Or x-ray vision, bionic ears, DNA and all the other things that can be used to spy/ intrude on our private lives

        1. avatar Me says:

          Things like thermal vision and GPS that can track you in a manner that natural senses cant are not allowed to be used without a warrant due to the 4th amendment.

    5. avatar Ollie says:

      The Second Amendment makes no mention of muskets, rifles or guns. It states “Arms”, which includes ALL military weaponry. It does not restrict the design of the arms, or the vintage of the arms other than they be military, by the very definition of Arms”. It allows the citizeny to possess military grade weapons.

      Firearms that have never been offically adopted by a military, like fowling pieces, target rifles, Saturday night specials, Kel-tecs, most hunting rifles and most pistols are not covered by the Second Amendment and may be banned and confiscated at any time and by any government entity from City Council to Potus.

      1. avatar JG says:

        And, at the time, muskets were weapons of war. Since weapons of war are covered, I want my full-auto and maybe a howitzer.

  2. avatar Steve Eisenberg says:

    Did he mention how the NRA taught church leaders in the 60s South how to protect their congregations with firearms? I’m gonna say no.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      Black church leaders, no less…

  3. avatar GARRETT says:

    By that logic the First Amendment only applies to spoken word, pen and paper, and the manual printing press. Forget radio, TV, and the internet. I’m sure they wouldn’t see it that way, though.

    1. avatar CplCamelToe says:

      Actually, I suspect she’d be just fine with that.

      The 1A was about right when the power it granted the peasants topped out at their spoken words, or their reach with a printing press. Now that they can spread their wrongspeak to the entire world with the rattle of a keyboard, the 1A has become too powerful.

      We just need some real patriots like Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg to pump the breaks and dial the power back down to the level the founders intended to grant us.

  4. avatar atavistic says:

    And the First doesn’t apply to TV, radio, internet or Mormonism since it didn’t exist back then either.

  5. avatar NightStryke says:

    “The Second Amendment is Only for Muskets”
    Then by that right you “First Amendment” only applies if you send me a letter written by an ink quill pen on parchment paper and delivered by some guy on a horse.

  6. avatar Higgs says:

    ignorance is a magical power that allows for the creation of imaginary realities.

    the founding fathers also knew about all of the following years before the constitution was ratified.
    – The Girardoni air rifle which could shoot 20 to 30 shots ( was used by Lewis and Clark on their expedition)
    – The Pucket gun created 50 years before the revolution
    – Cannons owned by Private citizens and loaned to the Revolutionary army since they owned NONE.

    All of these had far more firepower than a musket.

    Oh – and last time I read the second amendment it said “arms”, not muskets.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Yeah, I picked up on some wonderful ignorance from the article, too. An AR-15 “fires up to 45 rounds per minute”… Wut? Maybe that slow if the goal is to put all rounds on target at 100 yards.

      If the intent is to state how quickly an AR can be fired, anyone with an itchy finger can easily empty a 40-rd mag in under 15 seconds, if not 10.

      1. avatar ‘liljoe says:

        30 round mag in under three seconds, not bump firing (although it is a 3.5 lb trigger)

        Not these days with the ammo drought, but it’s easy enough to do if you don’t care that most (read all but the firs) shots will miss the target.

        It’s a lot of fun though.

  7. avatar Mark-in-Indy says:

    “When the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, we should remember that a musket could fire one to three or four rounds per minute, requiring the gunman to stop between each shot and reload gunpowder, add a patch and a ball, use the ramrod to clean the barrel, and then seat the round bullet properly. Oh, and fill the flashpan with gunpowder.”
    For the vast majority of combatants on both sides at the time, this is correct.
    I don’t believe the Amendment is outdated, as it exist to give the citizens the power to overwhelm a standing federal army.
    Zeitgeist must be considered when interpreting our Constitution.

  8. avatar Elmer Fudd says:

    Muskets included muzzle loading cannon with grapeshot. Fired shot 1,000 .50″ projectiles per shot. The ultimate shotgun.

  9. avatar d says:

    Muskets were also the military rifle of the day, therefore, when the 2nd A protected muskets, it protected the same rifles used by the military

    The first amendment only protects writing done with quill pens???

    Amazing how f’ing stupid the libturds are.

  10. avatar W says:

    The same argument happened 8 years ago. Then, the dull-witted unfortunate was Britain’s own Piers Morgan.

  11. avatar Automatic Jack says:

    So, which technology advance invalidated the 2nd Amendment? Was it percussion cap ignition? Invention of the revolver? Modern unary ammunition? Those dreaded lever action rifles?

    I would really like to know. Perhaps the author of the letter could enlighten us.

    1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      That’s an excellent point Jack, I’m gonna use that. Thanks for sharing!

  12. avatar BallisticIdiot says:

    45 rounds per minute? Those are rookie numbers.

    1. avatar Rad Man says:

      Indeed! Dump a 30 round mag in 6-8 seconds, throw in a few mag changes, let’s see…(carry the one), it’s a lot of rounds!

  13. avatar Wallace Dunn says:

    Patented in 1718… The Puckle gun is a tripod-mounted, single-barreled flintlock weapon fitted with a manually operated revolving cylinder; Puckle advertised its main application as an anti-boarding gun for use on ships. The barrel was 3 feet (0.91 m) long with a bore of 1.25 inches (32 mm). The cylinder held 6 to 11 shots depending on configuration, and was hand-loaded with powder and shot while detached from the weapon.

  14. avatar HEGEMON says:

    Doesn’t matter, these clowns would also argue that the musket is too powerful for civilians to own, most musket calibers were .50 caliber and above. Gun grabbers are miserable people, like most liberals, and would demand that muskets be also regulated or outlawed. When it comes to firearms they just never stop, ever. The prohibitionists goal is the repealing and complete abrogation of the 2A.

  15. avatar Jbw says:

    The musketwas used as a weapon of war, therefore the 2nd protects the common ownership of weapons of war. Since the Dems call ar15s weapons of war, by their admission ar15s are protected by the 2nd. I know of no country that has issued ar15s to troops to use in war.

  16. avatar Cknarf says:

    You can’t tell be that George Washington wouldn’t have loved an M16.

    1. avatar Tired of the bs says:

      No kidding or a carrige mounted mk-19

  17. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

    I guess the author of this piece would have no objections if I walked around with about eight double barreled pistols on my person ( like Black Beard the pirate) and a large tomahawk in my belt then.

  18. avatar Leigh says:

    And it does NOT say muskets…it says ARMS…intentionally …to encompass more than just pistols or rifles…
    AND…the only one to specifically state : shall not be infringed
    Oh…and very specific…says right of THE PEOPLE…not the militia

    1. avatar Me says:

      Very well said!

  19. avatar Leigh says:

    if they want to get picky…then no electronics or vehicles are covered by any of these either…right?
    so no warrant to search a car or phone…right?
    oh…and back then many black people were property…
    and women had no right to vote, either…

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      Your logic fits the first 2 cases, but the latter 2 had Amendments specifically allowing them.

  20. avatar Someone says:

    “Perhaps the issue for the assault rifle proponents is to possess all that power.”

    Actually, yes. As opposed to leaving all that power to the government. (With executive branch of thereof being led by “literally Hitler”, according to the same folks that want us regular people disarmed)

  21. avatar 0.3937007874015748 Inches says:

    Point 1: Repeating long guns of up to thirty rounds go back about two centuries before the American Revolution, that we know of. The Continental Congress itself tried to buy some.

    Point 2: America does not have a violence epidemic. All forms of violent crime have been falling for several decades.

    1. avatar LampOfDiogenes says:

      True in principle, but no longer true in fact: violent crime has been rising dramatically in our Dimocrat-run cities, since they gave Antifa/BLM a free pass to riot, burn and loot.

      But, yes, violent crime was on a decades-long decline before our “peaceful protesters” arrived. Ironic, that.

  22. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Then by that Leftard logic the First is only for spoken word and guill,ink and parcment.
    One might conclude that Leftist’s experience no pain as they have No brains.

  23. avatar Imayeti says:

    Electricity, motor vehicles, aircraft didn’t exist when the 2A was ratified. If progress is unacceptable then we need to rid ourselves of all.

  24. avatar Shire-man says:

    There should be some sort of “dead horse” law where if you insist on beating one so long dead you are taken away and never heard from again.

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      Shire-man-spot on!

      My ‘go to reply’ when ever I hear this argument is to ask “Where did the men who fired the “shot heard around the world” get their evil guns from, you know the Minutemen? (Usually it’s the 20s something that will approach me at work and I’m not convinced History is taught anymore)

      Me: Where did the Militia get their guns from?
      20 something: Blank stare..mumbles ..
      Me: Yes! They purchased and personally owned them.

  25. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

    Sounds like a kid write an opinion letter for a grade school class of some sort. Bet she got an A+:-)

  26. avatar MLee says:

    Just because some asshole bangs out some nonsensical opinionated crap on the keyboard and gets it posted in the paper, for FILLER, doesn’t render it anymore valid than the tons of other garbage that’s never read nor sees the light of day.
    The framers of our nation envisioned basic RIGHTS! It wasn’t then nor is it now about the TOOLS used for the application or implementation for any particular basic human right.

    It’s NOT ABOUT THE TOOLS. Freedoms are just that, a FREEDOM they aren’t open for manipulation by those who disagree.

    Any contrary argument is purely self-serving gibberish entertained by weak minded mainstream media brainwashed weaklings.

  27. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    ” the Second Amendment was not meant for assault weapons.”

    That’s exactly what the 2 nd. was meant for,every awesome powerful weapon of war, the “Right To Bear Arms” every type of arm,PERIOD.

    1. avatar gus says:

      yup. it was our guarantee that the people held the ultimate power, not the government.

  28. avatar DrFurBur says:

    The logic is obviously fallible from the obvious standpoint of the Air & Space Force. Th Constitution only allows the Gov’t to establish an Army & Navy….Funny how things work…

  29. avatar DaveL says:

    The exact same weapon technology existed at the time the 2nd Amendment was written as existed when the Army and Navy clauses were written, yet you never heard anybody claim the constitution limits Congress to muskets and wooden sailing ships. A reasonable person can understand those clauses were not about the specific technology, but about making effective armed force available to the US Government for its legitimate ends. But of course, the purpose of pthe 2nd Amendment is similar: to make effective armed force available to the people for their own legitimate ends.

    And that’s what this is about, really – not about rates of fire or effective range, but about a faction that denies there are any legitimate ends for the use of armed force by the people. And since both history and a plain reading of the 2nd Amendment make that position absurd, they need to camouflage it as something else.

  30. avatar The Election Was A Fraud says:

    These muskets are “Weapons Of War” the Leftists Democrats tells us these have no business in society. How can the 2nd Amendment protect “Weapons Of War”?

  31. avatar B says:

    Bottom line:
    A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, means that a group of private citizens who train for military duty in order to be ready to defend their state or country in times of emergency, MUST BE PROPERLY OPERATING and EFFECTIVELY EQUIPPED which is NECESSARY to be FREE. Meaning, frrom oppression, of any form, that infringes on civil liberties, including an overreaching tyrannical government. Therefore, the right of the PEOPLE, which does not discriminate on status, to possess and carry ARMS, wether basic or advanced, any and all, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED….Ever!

    To successfully defend against oppressive enemies, obviously requires the use of tools. Wether it’s defensive or offense is just semantics. The goal is to be free and not enslaved.

    To believe that living free does not encompass advances in technology is illogical and plain ignorant.

    1. avatar B says:

      Sticks and stones, nukes, lightsabres, or phasers, matters not.

    2. avatar Kickaha13 says:

      There are 2 forms of militia. One is an organized militia that trains and is on call for duty of which there are two forms. One is the National Guard and can be called to federal duty. The other is the state militia and serves only under the authority of the state governor.
      The second form of militia is the unorganized militia and it is comprised of all citizens over 17 and under 45 years of age not in an organized military. There are a few exceptions to this and they are spelled out in the Militia Act of 1903.

  32. avatar Chris Morton says:

    It’s good to know that the 1st Amendment:
    * protects ONLY broadsheets printed on lead type and town criers.
    * does NOT protect radio broadcasts, telephone communications, television, the internet, and publications printed on electronic typesetting machines.
    * does NOT protect condemnations of racial oppression.
    * does NOT protect the Mormon Church.

    Like all cultists, anti-gun cultists live in a fantasy world of their own delusions, wholly divorced from reality.

  33. avatar WI Patriot says:

    That’s fine, like (most)everything else, the “musket” has evolved, I just happen to own an “evolved” musket…

  34. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    Here’s my obligatory letter to the editor; We aren’t giving up registering another fucking thing.

  35. avatar Ticked Off says:

    Sorry, I’m done arguing with these idiots. I don’t have to ask their permission for anything…and I won’t.

    My answer to them is STFU and leave me alone.

    1. avatar gus says:

      that’s the whole problem. you have been fooled into thinking you have to get them to agree before you can do it.

      worthy proposition for a democracy, but it fails when they selfishly refuse to agree no matter what. they’re liars with an agenda.

  36. avatar Wheaton Jaeger says:

    The body of the Constitution mentions issuing letters of marque, so they envisioned privately owned state of the art warships. Who wants to go halfsies on a missile cruiser?

    1. avatar B says:

      Ooo! Ooo! …(as hand is raised eagerly in the air)

    2. avatar Tired of the bs says:

      I’ve always figured it meant whatever you can afford, that’s how is was at the time. If you got the money for a warship and crew go for it. Want a cannon for your front yard, sure why not.

  37. avatar Ralph says:

    Repeating firearms date back to the 1600s. There can be no doubt that the Founders knew about them. The Girardoni rifle accompanied Lew and Clark, when Jefferson was President. Semiautomatic firearms date back to 1885. They were perfectly legal in America then as now.

    Ignorance can be overcome with education, but there’s no cure for stupid.

  38. avatar gus says:

    we should only be allowed to own muskets because that’s what people were allowed to own when the 2nd Amendment was created.


    people were also allowed to walk around carrying their muskets. and blunderbusses, swords, knives, and whatever else they had. open or concealed, didn’t matter.

    and they were allowed to own cannons too.

    therefore, we can do that. right? right.

  39. Wall guns, large bore for long range, and swivel guns, light can0n were common. Field pieces were sold to anyone with money. The division between civilian guns and military was the provision for a bayonet, fully half the reason for having a musket. Repeating guns which operated with a hand crank were well known before the revolutionary period. They were expensive, complex and involved holding a half pound of gunpowder in one’s hand while steel parts ground together. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution protects rights, not technology.

  40. avatar 007 says:

    If “The Second Amendment is Only for Muskets” then make authorities only be armed with the muskets also. After all the main tenet of 2nd is to have ability to defeat criminal governments.

  41. avatar 2A or Bust says:

    The First was mainly to protect religious freedom. Let’s burn that down so the “mostly peaceful” protests can get the policing they deserve. Whoever wrote the editorial should be brought to the town square for some lashes.

  42. avatar GS650G says:


    Ask if the internet and all modern communication is outside the first amendment because it didn’t exist in 1791.

    Ends the argument right there.

    1. avatar gus says:

      that’s the first thing I thought of. the irony of that moron publishing his drivel on the internet.

  43. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Yes, I went there.

    “The Right to Bear Bazookas: A New Take on the Second Amendment”

    1. avatar gus says:

      actually, yes. when a “militia” obviously requires bazookas, mortars, crew-served weapons, etc. to conduct the business of preserving “the security of a free state”,

      how could the “arms” they have a right to, be limited to personal weapons?

  44. avatar Elmer Fudd says:

    I thought that the Second Amendment was about hunting wascally wabbits and screwy ducks. The weapons that are protected by the Second Amendment appear to be somewhat ambiguous, either rifle or shotgun, quarry with an unlimited magazine capacity. When have you ever seen me reload?

  45. avatar Pete says:

    We are supposed to believe that the Founders could not have possibly imagined a firearm capable of being fired faster than a musket, so the 2nd does not apply to more modern guns.
    But we are supposed to believe they could have envisioned the internet, cell phones and Twitter, so the 1st applies to them?
    Let’s not even get into racial quotas, trans rights, etc…

  46. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

    “This is a ‘ghost gun.’ This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second.”
    This is the level of understanding of the idiots who desperately want to pass unconstitutional laws. Not only do they fail to understand the technology they want to pass legislation about, they fail to understand that the American people will not comply, and attempts to confiscate will run hard into a modern day version of April 19th 1775.

  47. avatar Geoffrey Tofte says:

    The kalthoff repeater of 1630’s Capacity said to vary between 5 and 30 rounds, depending on config. Don’t know much but what I’ve read but also heard they were the first repeating firearms military issued?

  48. avatar MLee says:

    The opinion was written by Loraine Brandt of Salt Lake City, UT. A female and likely a Mormon.
    Yeah as if could give two f—– what she has to say!

  49. avatar Hannibal says:

    There is no small bit of irony in such a nonsense letter being published by the free press via the internet.

  50. avatar . says:

    The type of arms is not relevant. What is relevant is the people were armed with the most advanced weapons of the time.
    I see no restrictions in the Second Amendment on the arms we are permitted to bear.
    Permitted. Yes we’ve let our government give us permission to exercise our rights.

    1. avatar Tired of the bs says:

      The 2a says nothing about permits. Taken as a whole the Bill of Rights is a list of things the government can’t fuck with. It is our fault for letting them get away with this shit for far to long.

      1. avatar Coolbreeze says:

        Far, far too long.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      You’ve just described the entire meaning of government. Government is when people agree to surrender their individual autonomy to a collective authority to varied degrees.

      We can talk about balances and trade-offs but don’t pretend you would ever want to live anywhere where people don’t do exactly that. Ever lived in a failed state?

  51. avatar DCSKIHOG says:

    If you think that the Founding Fathers only intended for the 2nd Amendment to apply to muskets, then surely you must agree that your 1st Amendment rights only extend to what you write on parchment with a quill pen, what you print using a hand operated movable type press, or how far your voice can carry from the center of town, since those were the means of communication in use during the time of the Founding Fathers.”

  52. avatar GP says:

    Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the. Constitution by claiming it is not an individual right or that it is too much of a safety hazard don’t see the danger of the big picture. They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like. Alan Dershowitz

    First 2 words are redundant.

  53. avatar Frank M. says:

    Madison was a slave owner but American gun control laws originated to keep guns out of the hands of black folks.

  54. avatar Chris A. says:

    Caetano vs. Massachusetts, SCOTUS(2016), this is settled law people.

    1. They just ignore the settled law that they do not like.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      There is no decision by a court that cannot be unmade by the same court- just as there is no law that may not be unmade by the same legislature.

      The concept of settled law is nothing but a norm. And norms are an endangered species nowadays.

  55. avatar Frank says:

    I was going too but I’m afraid I would repeat what everyone else said. But I will say, I’ve got your Musket, right here, choke on it!

  56. avatar 1SFGSFC says:

    If they want to play the musket game, the First Amendment only applies to newspapers and pamphlets! No TV, internet, blogs etc. We’ll play your game.

  57. avatar LasVegas says:

    Amendment 2 is not a grant of permission, but a protection of a right.

    The rights protected by the amendments exist independent of societies or governments.

    All people in all nations at all times have the same rights. The SAME RIGHTS. It is only the tyrant that seeks to curtail the free exercise of natural rights.

    That simple fact, which serves as the foundation of peace, equality, and liberty, is foreign to 99.999% of the people, and their leaders.

  58. avatar anarchyst says:

    That same argument could be used to argue that the First Amendment dos not apply to modern-day mass communications (radio, television, internet, offset presses) but only to Benjamin Franklin printing presses and town criers…

  59. avatar Coolbreeze says:

    IF American rights are based on the available technology at the time they were incorporated into the Constitution then the first amendment must be regarded the same. The rate of disemination of speech shall not exceed the level that was possible in the late 1700s. Therefore, that rate shall not exceed the speed of a horse and rider or horse drawn coach on a corduroy road, or a wind driven ocean-going ship. No Pony Express, no high speed presses, and certainly no electronic means of speech (telegraph, radio, broadcast television, internet streaming, blogging, instagram, fb, tiktok, ad infinitum).
    A similar approach must be applied to all the enumerated rights IF one wants to interpret rights in this ludicrous way.

  60. avatar Coolbreeze says:

    Rights are frozen in time!? Blacks are only 3/5s of a person?…is that what they are proposing? Racists!

  61. avatar Edward Williams says:

    Every time I read that the second amendment only applies to muskets, I wonder if freedom of speech only applies to people standing on a tree stump and speaking or if freedom of the press only applies to manually printed newspapers where ink is applied each time a paper is printed.

  62. avatar equality says:

    so then how shall we reshape the first amendment for the time period of its inception?

    too much information passes to computers and its too hard for the government to keep you safe from all the misinformation – computers should be made illegal!!!!!

    -no more smartphones
    -no more kindle
    -no more smart cars
    -no more online parties
    -no more
    -no more twitter
    -no more etc, etc, etc

    I do always enjoy the arguments where it is as if in these persons minds when infringements are placed on an amendment that explicit states no infringements what can be done to the many others amendments that do not contain nearly as specif of a definition as to the ability to gut them.

    Be careful what you wish for, there is no safe space to hide from this irrefutable fact.

  63. avatar Ben Bow says:

    if muskets and other blackpowder arms of the 1770s are all that is protected, then HAND GRENADES are protected, as they existed at the time and could be bought then by mail order, and are an essential component of musket warfare

  64. avatar Vincent says:

    I believe the 2nd Amendment refers to arms, not muskets. Arms would be any military type weapon. Swords, firearms of most types, including full auto firearms, lances, grenades, etc. Up to and including crew served artillery. Remember it was why the British Army was going to Lexington. To confiscate the cannon owned by the militia. As i privately owned field pieces. And don’t forget the part where the 2nd says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Again, arms, not single shot smoothbore muskets.

  65. avatar Robert says:

    You are all AGAIN arguing against an invalid argument that a LIBERAL Supreme Court already refused to discuss further.
    WHY don’t you turn that stupid argument around and start attacking the FIRST AMENDMENT, that it “NEVER ANTICIPATED” Radio, TV, computers and the Internet, and therefore it does not protect “free speech” or the 4th Estate?
    I mean, if we are going to be ridiculous, let’s go all the way.
    OOPS. That’s right. Hitler already went there on BOTH Amendments.

  66. avatar CanoeIt says:

    Well, to follow that argument to its logical conclusion, when these morons convince every miltitary and law enforcent agency in the world to go back to muskets and manual muzzle load cannons, I will consider the argument potentially valid. Until then, they can cry and wail all they want and alert the criminals to their victimhood mentality and be accommodated post haste. I will never be a willing victim nor will I mourn the loss of those that are. I don’t recall who said it, but “Those who would take your guns, intend to do something that would force you to use them.”

  67. avatar Ron says:

    That argument is as stupid as saying the First Amendment only protects newspapers.

  68. avatar busybeef says:

    If the 2A only applies to muskets then the 1A only applies to fountain pens.

    And I’m not even going to venture into where Scientology falls . . . .

  69. avatar Pat R. Iot says:

    Sure, if this is legit let’s apply it to every other Amendment as well. For example; If you want to drop a few “N-words” in your rap song, maybe you need to apply for a “Free Speech permit”, pay $200 dollar “tax” for each use of the word, chorus included, 100% Ni**a ( duck duck go search that song if you have never heard it, lyrical genius I tell you. ) would be a government cash cow. Think I am crazy? What was the medium for free speech when the Constitution was written? One’s voice, perhaps writing a letter? The Founding Fathers would NEVER have imagined a magical device that fits in your pocket and allows you to reach MILLIONS of people in an instant. NO SIR, your “free speech” never was intended to tell the world what you had for breakfast or God forbid, send a picture of yourself in tight pants at the gym. (Can you see Benjamin Franklin spinning in his grave?) I could go on, but to be honest I need to get work done.. yes THAT 4 letter word… .WORK.

  70. avatar Buckeyemike says:

    If he emailed that into the newspaper, he has no first amendment rights. The computer and internet didn’t exist.

  71. avatar Alan says:

    What sort of “power trip” are the Anti Gun types on seems a valid question, one not sufficiently examined. Funny, isn’t it. How come?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email