Joe Biden, May 25: "There've always been restrictions. When the 2nd amendment was passed, you couldn't own a cannon." (legal, regular)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is an anti-tank round. Max range 5,000 yards. For folks not quick with math, that's a hair under 3 miles. So probably inside 2 miles reliably, you can penetrate tank plating...with a bolt action rifle.
Uhm Joe...you could own cannons back then, and apparently, thanks to folks like Anzio Ironworks, you can still own them.
I'd like to hear a logical argument against what he said, specifically.
I know it's hard not to resort to insults and change the subject, but it could be interesting to hear why pro-assault weapon nuts think canons should have been included in the second amendment.
Last edited by thinkingandwondering; 05-26-2022 at 04:51 PM..
I'd like to hear a logical argument against what he said, specifically.
I know it's hard not to result to insults and change the subject, but it could be interesting to hear why pro-assault weapon nuts think canons should have been included in the second amendment.
The logical argument against what he said is that he either flat-out lied or he is so unfamiliar with our own history that he is making crap up.
I'd like to hear a logical argument against what he said, specifically.
I know it's hard not to result to insults and change the subject, but it could be interesting to hear why pro-assault weapon nuts think canons should have been included in the second amendment.
Cannons were implicitly included because they weren't explicitly excluded, and the 9th and 10th Amendments are clear where "wasn't mentioned, so..." is concerned. If it isn't enumerated, then assume the right exists and it belongs to the States and the People. Don't see cannons specifically enumerated anywhere, so yeah, it's up to the States and the People.
Private citizens were allowed to and did own cannons when the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution. They were just rare because, like the 20mm rifle I linked above, they were very expensive. Private citizens had all of the same weaponry the Army and Navy had. Initially, that's where the military of the Colonies got their weapons...from private citizens donating to the cause. They didn't qualify or specifically include/exclude anything because it was just commonly accepted as "whatever you can and choose to afford, those are arms you can keep and bear..."
They understood the why/how/when of tyranny way more immediately and intimately than circa 2022 Americans do. And I am sure at some point that King George III and the decently large population of colonial Loyalists all pointed out that colonists need no weapons because His majesty's troops take care of all that for us, dontcha know. Read the Federalist Papers and the Anti Federalist Papers. It's all explained in great detail.
Private citizens being the armed SUPERIOR of their government was the preferred model. Go read it if you doubt me.
I'm surprised Biden dropped the ball like this. I mean... come on... he was an eyewitness at the signing. He should be able to remember which sorts of firearms people could own.
I’m sure he didn’t come up with that line himself, but it works.
It is a childish ridiculous analogy by a president who is reverting to childhood.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.