Liberals are winning the gun debate

Ok I know you're getting a little upset here so lets take a deep breath and calm down a little... It's very easy to get flustered when things aren't going your way. I can actually show private ownership of cannons as proven by a letter of marque from President Madison during the war of 1812. The owner of the ship was allowed to own cannons for his private vessel. Does that open the case back up again? Probably not in your mind I'm sure because you only use "logic and undeniable facts." Which translates to your feelings and conjectures. http://www.1812privateers.org... You do realize that during the Revolutionary war all the militia men were armed with the most current weapons of their time correct? Or did they just have bows and arrows since the Founding Fathers didn't want them to have any military technology of the times? It seems that if there was a need for rebellion against the government you would want to be armed in a way that would make fighting against the government effective... Which I will remind you has already happened twice in our countries history. Do you actually want to know what the Founding Fathers thought of the Second Amendment? Or do you just want to continue pretending that you're inside the minds of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington? Here are some quotes for you to help you in your spiritual journey to understanding: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776 "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787 "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787 Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 "On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823 This last one is my favorite and I promise there are plenty more if you would take just ten minutes and read about history a little bit. The point of this last quote, I am sure you would say, is that the spirit of the Constitution is to allow every citizen to bear a musket. Since that was the arm of the times. Wouldn't that be the most probable interpretation? So you believe that in the spirit of the Constitution we should ban all weapons other than muskets. Or maybe we could just use the actual text of the Second Amendment and the spirit of the debate at that time (which I am sure you will concede was about rebelling against tyrannical government, since it had just been done, and not hunting) and not try and read in anything else from your "logical" brain. Thank you for defining assault weapons, bullets and game fowl for me. That was most kind of you. I understand that you think I am the one inferring things here and you don't realize that it is you. I've tried to help you with that but it doesn't seem to be working. Not once have I attempted to guess at what the Founding Fathers wanted without using the words of the Second Amendment or their direct quotes. You have. If you could find a quote from the Founding Fathers attempting to limit access to weapons for citizens it would change the entire debate. Your argument boils down to this: "I don't think the Founding Fathers would want us to have "assault" weapons because they are too dangerous." With no facts to back up this claim it is just you trying to backdate your own views on what long dead people clearly did not say or intend. If you want to have a pragmatic discussion about whether it is practical for individuals to own such weapons considering the risk that is fine. Just realize two things. One, your view is not consistent with the Constitution or any writings of the Founding Fathers. Two, you have no principles and you will lose all your gun rights piece by piece. An argument like yours for the safety of the people can just as easily be applied to handguns, hunting rifles and shotguns. After all the third deadliest shooting in the country at Virginia Tech was carried out with pistols. 33 people died. Why not ban those next? Are they not dangerous enough for you? In fact the massive majority of casualties in the United States are cause by handguns. If we really wanted to protect our citizens we would ban those right? The Founding Fathers did want us to have weapons of mass killing in the hands of the common man. 24,000 British soldiers were killed at the hands of the common man during the Revolutionary War with weapons of "mass killing." These were militia men with their own private weapons, not professionals for the most part. It's hard to believe you can quote the Second Amendment which clearly says keep and bear arms right next to "shall not be infringed" and then in the next sentence make an argument that it should be infringed. A good word for you would be "unhinged." No one owned a cannon for their home defense. That would be impractical. The point is not home defense as I've had to remind you fifty times already. People who owned arms during the writing of the Constitution were allowed the exact same armaments that were used by the tiny amount of professional soldiers the United States possessed at that time. Apply the principle today! Except you want to apply a different principle which is fine. Just don't pretend the Second Amendment backs you up while you piss all over it. It is very easy for anyone reading this to recognize that what you have stated here is completely lacking in any factual evidence or references to anything relevant and is instead the moral rantings and ravings of someone who has not quite thought through this. All you have to say is that my view is not reasonable, not mature, irrational, has no basis in reality, is indefensible, etc... These are not arguments. Your "Think of the children" stance has been used by anti-gun advocates since the dawn of time to attempt to abolish gun ownership in all forms. Go ahead and hand your rights over to the government in return for some temporary safety but don't ask me to do the same. Thank you for your time I have definitely enjoyed this.