Interesting facts about our (USA's) gun culture

[hesredbird]

*Originally posted by Mjollnir *
**(Firm Second Amendment supporter here)

I read this review of a book (Arming America by Michael Bellesiles) in a local newspaper. I have not actually read this book myself:

(reviewer’s words)

“Hardly anyone had a gun because they were too expensive and didn’t work. It was much easier and less time-consuming to chop off a chicken’s head for dinner than to try to shoot almost anything in the woods.”

“There were few guns manufactured in America for anyone, even the militia, and few men knew how to shoot them. Since almost no one owned guns, there were few opportunities for practice. . . The result was a militia that was pretty much a joke.”
**

I don’t have the exact numbers but I remember reading in the latter part of the 18th Century there were 86 registered gunsmiths in Lancaster Co. Pa. alone. My only question would be, “Who were all these guys makin guns for?”

I can see these being true statements if they were refering to 17th century Europe.

[tracer]

Don’t forget, a late-18th-century gunsmith didn’t have access to the mass-production technology available to a late-19th-century gunsmith. Each gun pretty much had to be made by hand back then.

<Insert obligatory Eli Whitney reference here>

[Crafter_Man]

Kenneth W. Royce (aka Boston T. Party) has come up with a “re-write” for the Second Amendment:

“Neither Congress, nor the President, nor any State shall deny, infringe, regulate, or tax the absolute right of the people, in both their individual and collective militia capacities, to own, carry, and use weapons. Any congressional act, executive order, or State legislative act which would, under any guise or pretense, deny, infringe, regulate, or tax this cornerstone right is null and void at moment of passage, and may lawfully be, without risk of prosecution, ignored, or, if deemed necessary, forcibly resisted.”

I like it. But I doubt Charles Schumer or Barbara Boxer would…

[Lizard]

*Originally posted by stofsky *
Damn, damn, damn! When am I finally going to keep that promise to myself to stop arguing with rabid anti-abortionists, gun nuts, racists, republicans, and fundies? **

I dunno. Maybe when you figure out that these are not all the same group?

I am NOT:
a racist
a rabid anti-abortionist
a republican (sic)
a “fundie”

I AM:
a gun nut

Heaven help us!

[Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

OK, I’ve been out of town for a while, but I just wanted to add one point:

The first part of the Second Amendment, if I’m remembering Mrs Barbara Harmon’s 11th grade English class correctly, is a grammatical construct known as a nominative absolute.

[ExTank]

Mjollnir: “Nominative Absolute”?

Uhm…I got a D in High School English. 18 Years ago.

Please elaborate.

ExTank
“Mostly Harmless :p”

[Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker]

The Nominative Absolute:

http://kids.infoplease.lycos.com/ipd/A0554621.html

[ExTank]

I’ll buy that for a dollar.

I hope for your sake you’re not expecting any money.

ExTank
“Mostly Broke :p”

[SPOOFE]

In either case - be it a “nomitive absolute”, or a “dependent subject”, or a freakin’ “voovee dizzowamp” - I think half of the 2nd Amendment is absolutely clear: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” No matter what talk anyone can bring up about militas (which is easily debunked) or rules of grammar, the latter half is clear as clear can be… clearer than most of the 1st amendment, IMOSHO.

[tracer]

Crafter_Man wrote:

Kenneth W. Royce (aka Boston T. Party) has come up with a “re-write” for the Second Amendment:

Is this the same Boston T. Party who has published at least one patriot/sovereign-citizen book on how to, ahem, “legally” get out of paying income tax?