[High Praise! to Freedom Is Just Another Word]
Spread it around:
- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
- Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
- More
- Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
- Click to print (Opens in new window)
To clarify: You have a constitutional right to operate movable printed type powered by hand, mill, or livestock.
To clarify:Wendy “Wednesday” Martin is an American author and cultural critic who writes on parenting, step-parenting, and popular culture.
Don’t see anything about being an expert on the meaning of the constitution….or anything else.
I like how she has to tell the world that she’s a ‘P(iled)H(igher)D(eeper), wow! I’m impressed!!11!! So you need to go to school for 12 years to write on parenting, step-parenting, and popular culture? That’s pretty sad.
Upper East Side housewife’s tell-all book is full of lies.
A liberal who’s also a liar, that almost never happens.
The problem with morons like her is she has NO idea of the state of the art of gun smithing back then. There were repeating rifles, with 13 round internal magazines. I don’t know all the details, not having done the research myself, but I’ve read claims that a “well regulated” (back then, “regulated” emanated “practiced”) user could get off all 13 shots in a minute. And these were rifled guns, so they were accurate over long distances. They weren’t widespread, because they were hideously expensive for the time.
And of course, she, and all others like her, completely ignore that the second amendment means I can own cannon, and the shells they fire. Private ownership of cannon was widespread (amongst those who could afford it) at the time of the founding; the cannon used by the continental army in the Battle of Breed’s Hill (aka Battle of Bunker Hill) were borrowed from a local private owner. Most merchant vessels, privately owned, were armed with cannon.
You’re thinking of the Kalthoff(1650) or Lorenzoni(1680) flintlock repeaters with up to 30 rounds, or the Girardoni air rifle which could carry 22 rounds and was quickly reloadable.
And don’t forget that the Concord/Lexington dust-up happened when the government tried to take “state-of-the-art” cannons away from the people.
Does she realize that she’s just given all citizens carte blanche, and her support, to manufacture their own homemade gunpowder, pistols, rifles, muskets, and swords, and to carry them openly? Government prohibition of these activities would obviously infringe on the right she just enunciated. Is she willing to go to bat for the rights she’s admitted are rights?
WHen you are making things up as you go along you get things like Wendy says.
Sooooo, following her logical trail, if one can, let us look at the following that shows any US citizen can own an atomic device.
1. Atomic Devices are not mentioned in the Constitution
2. Amendment Nine says “.The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Meaning if it doesn’t say something isn’t a right then it is assumed it is a right retained by the people.
3. Amendment Ten says. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” Meaning if the Constitution doesn’t delegate a power to the Federal government then it is up to the states Or the people to exercise that power. No state prohibits to the owning of nuclear weapons, therefore any US citizen should be able to own one.
I rest my case your Honor.