bylm1-Bernie wrote:
Could you maybe point out where in the Constitution it specifies the number of allowable rounds a magazine may contain?
I think we are well beyond debating what the constitution said about guns..
We could go into "why", looking logically at what the nations condition was at the late 1700s.. but non of you would consider that, even for a looky-look..
while the very first multi fire guns were put together long (decades) before our revolution and the Declaration/constitution, None of them were practical until the Gatling gun in the mid 1800s..
So I feel comfortable saying the founding fathers were talking single shot guns as they wrote our hallowed paper of directions..
Like every thing else in live, guns change and expectations change, I can not find any logic in saying the fathers promoted a system to remove the power from the very system which gave them power to write the constitution.
force out our new government and replace them with what?
remove themselves or those that followed the same great system?
Back in the a opening days of our nation, we had no real army, the Marines abourd ships was the closest to military we had..
So at that time an organized bunch of rowdy civilians could indeed over turn the government of our nation..
Today.. as has been pointed out, before the rabble even got to the military, they would be shot to ribbons.
Does anyone truly believe that a group of average citizens could get off the couch and battle with any of our many forms of near military type law agencies?
Does anyone truly think the Military would side with a bunch of rabble couch potatoes to try and k**l anyone in our government? or even the hardware store owner?
The craving for "big" guns has no honest base in patriotism, it is only a "gosh I wish I could be Rambo" dream of the playground mind..