Magazines over 10 rounds were well-known to the Founders

Third Circuit case challenges NJ magazine confiscation statute

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

Did the Framers of the Second Amendment consider the possibility that Americans might own firearms with a capacity greater than 10 rounds? Certainly yes. Such arms had been invented two centuries before the Second Amendment, and by 1791, repeating arms, including those capable of firing more than 10 rounds, were well-known in the United States. The history is explained in a Third Circuit amicus brief I coauthored last week.

Case background: In 2018, the New Jersey legislature prohibited the possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds. The details of the statute are explained here by NJ firearms attorneys Scott Bach and Evan Nappen. The day the governor signed the legislation, the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs sued the New Jersey Attorney General, asking for a preliminary injunction. District Court filings are available here. District Judge Peter G. Sheridan denied the preliminary injunction in September 2018. 2018 WL 4688345 (Sept. 28, 2018).

On expedited appeal, a 2-1  panel of the Third Circuit upheld the denial of the preliminary injunction in December 2018. 910 F.3d 106. Circuit Judge Patty Shwartz wrote the opinion, joined by Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. (Both are Obama appointees. Judge Shwartz's seat was previously held by President's Trump's sister Marion Trump Barry; Judge Greenaway replaced Samuel Alito.) Judge Stephanos Bibas (former U. Penn. prof., appointed 2017 by Trump) dissented, writing "the majority's version of intermediate scrutiny is too lax. It cannot fairly be called intermediate scrutiny at all. Intermediate scrutiny requires more concrete and specific proof before the government may restrict any constitutional right, period." 910 F.3d at 133–34.

After remand to the district court, the District Judge ruled that there was nothing more to do, since the Third Circuit majority had disposed of all issues. Plaintiffs disagreed, and the case has now returned to the Third Circuit for briefing.

Amici: The amici on the brief include seven professors who are experts in Second Amendment law: Royce Barondes (Missouri), Robert Cottrol (George Washington),
Nicholas Johnson (Fordham), Joyce Malcolm (George Mason), Joseph Olson (Mitchell Hamline), Glenn Reynolds (Tennessee), and Gregory Wallace (Campbell). Organization amici are the Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Madison Society Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, and Independence Institute (where I work). The lead attorney on the brief was Joseph Greenlee, joined by me and by Prof. George A. Mocsary (U. Wyo. law school). Some of the material in the brief is covered in more detail in my article The History of Firearms Magazines and of Magazine Prohibition, 78 Albany Law Review 849 (2015).

Earliest repeating arms:  repeater is a firearm that can fire more than one shot without having to be reloaded. The first known repeating firearms date back to between 1490 and 1530, with guns that fired 10 consecutive rounds. A 1580 gun could fire 16 shots. Once the user pressed the trigger, these guns would continue to fire until the ammunition was exhausted.

Seventeenth century: By the 1640s, major improvements in repeating arms had been developed. Now, the user could fire just one shot by pressing the trigger, and then fire more shots by pressing the trigger repeatedly. Danish rifles invented by Peter Kalthoff had ammunition capacities ranging from 6 to 30 rounds. During the seventeenth century, Kalthoff repeaters were copied by gunsmiths from London to Moscow.

At about the same time, the Lorenzoni revolver was invented in Italy, with a typical capacity of 7 shots. Like semiautomatic firearms (invented 1885), the Lorenzoni could self-reload. To fire the next shot, the user did not have to move a lever, bolt, or pump; the Lorenzoni could fire as fast the user could press the trigger–similar to modern revolvers or semiautomatics. The Lorenzoni was manufactured far and wide–including in New England. Famed diarist Samuel Pepys was much impressed with a demonstration he saw in London in 1664.

Early America: The Kalthoffs and Lorenzonis were not the only repeaters made during the century. For example, in the mid-1600s, some American repeaters were manufactured with revolving cylinders to hold the ammunition. Unlike the revolvers perfected by Samuel Colt in the 1830s, these revolvers required the user to rotate the cylinder by hand after each shot.

The French in North America had their own repeaters. For example, in 1690 the Comte de Frontenac "astonished the Iroquois with his three and five shot repeaters." 1 Charles Winthrop Sawyer, Firearms in American History 29 (1910).

Eighteenth century: Before the industrial revolution, firearms manufacture was artisanal, with guns being made one at a time by gunsmiths. Repeating arms have more parts than single-shot guns, and the parts must fit more closely than in a single-shot. Accordingly, the necessary expertise and labor time to manufacture repeaters meant that repeaters were only affordable for the wealthier minority of the population.

Growing prosperity in the eighteenth century enabled more Americans to buy repeaters. Lorenzoni variants were popular, particularly 9 or 10 shot versions made by London gunsmith John Cookson, and by a New England gunsmith of the same name. In 1722, Boston gunsmith John Pim impressed some local Indians with an 11-shot repeater that he manufactured and sold. "[L]oaded but once," it "was discharged eleven times following, with bullets, in the space of two minutes, each which went through a double door at fifty yards' distance." Samuel Niles, A Summary Historical Narrative of the Wars in New England, in Mass. Hist. Soc. Collections, 4th ser., vol. 5, at 347 (1837).

During the Revolution, inventor Joseph Belton demonstrated a 16 shot long gun. Witnesses, including Gen. Horatio Gates and scientist David Rittenhouse, were impressed, and the Continental Congress negotiated with Belton for a large order, but Belton wanted more money than Congress could afford.

Also during the Revolution, the British introduced their six-shot Ferguson Rifle (which might have made a difference in the war, if the British had manufactured enough of them) and the Nock Valley Gun (which shot seven rounds at once).

Early Republic: By the time the Second Amendment was ratified, the state-of-the-art
repeater was the Girandoni air rifle, which could shoot 21 or 22 rounds in .46 or .49 caliber. Although powered by compressed air, the Girandoni was ballistically equal
to a powder gun, and powerful enough to take an elk with a single shot. Many air guns of the time were equally powerful.

Originally invented for Austrian army sharpshooters, the Girandoni was manufactured in Russia, Germany, Switzerland, England–and Pennsylvania. Meriwether Lewis bought a Pennsylvania model, and carried on the Lewis and Clark Expedition. The gun is mentioned 22 times in Clark's journal–usually in the context of the expedition showing off the gun to Indians, making the implicit point that the expedition could defend itself against a larger group.

Early nineteenth century: The 1820s brought a new type of repeaters: Isaiah Jennings' 15-20 shot models, which were copied by Reuben Ellis for a military contract later in the decade.

Double-barreled guns (like today's double-barreled shotguns) had long been popular, but the first repeating arms that could fire several shots and that were broadly affordable to the middle class were the pepperbox handguns of the 1830s. They held the ammunition in rotating barrels, one round per barrel. The most common pepperboxes held 4 to 8 rounds, while some held up to 24. The 12-shot Bennett and Haviland Rifle used a similar system.

Colonel Samuel Colt improved everything with his revolvers. Colt's handguns only needed one barrel, while the ammunition was stored in a revolving cylinder.

Since the War of 1812, the federal armories at Springfield, Massachusetts, and Harpers Ferry, Virginia, had been working hard at learning how to mass produce firearms with interchangeable parts. The Springfield Armory worked closely with private entrepreneurs, gaining their knowledge and broadly disseminating its own knowledge. The federal armories became the foundation of "the American system of manufacture"–a term that caught on globally when Samuel Colt displayed his revolvers at the Crystal Palace Exhibition in London in 1853-54.

The government-led advances in firearms manufacturing helped made firearms, including repeaters, increasingly affordable. The American system of manufacture first spread from firearms to sewing machines and eventually to grain reapers, typewriters, bicycles, and automobiles. The prosperity created by the American system created a virtuous cycle in which Americans got richer and spent more money on manufactured goods, and the growing sales of the manufacturers led to improvements that continually increased quality and reduced price.

Mid-nineteenth century: By the 1850s, all sorts of repeating arms were being sold in America, including 21-round pinfire revolvers, 12 shot/6 chamber revolvers, the 15-round Hall rifle, the 38 or 60 shot Porter Rifles, and the 42 shot Ferris Wheel pistol.

But the most successful developments began with a collaboration of Daniel Wesson (later, of Smith & Wesson) and Oliver Winchester. They combined the recently-invented metallic cartridge (which holds the bullet, gunpowder, and primer in a metal cylinder) with the lever action (in which the user reloads the next round of ammunition by pulling a lever up and down). The lever action had been invented centuries before in England, but was not broadly affordable until the American system of manufacture.

The first Wesson and Winchester gun was the 30-shot Volcanic Rifle; introduced in 1859, it had reliability problems. The problems were solved in the successor model, the 16 shot Henry Rifle of 1861, which could fire its full capacity in 11 seconds. By 1862, Union solders were using Henrys in the Civil War.

Then as now, repeaters make self-defense possible for an individual who is attacked by a group. One of he most famous testimonials for the Henry came from Captain James M. Wilson of the 12th Kentucky Cavalry, who used a Henry Rifle to kill seven of his Confederate neighbors who broke into his home and ambushed his family. Wilson praised the rifle's 16-round capacity: "When attacked alone by seven guerillas I found it to be particularly useful not only in regard to its fatal precision, but also in the number of shots held in reserve for immediate action in case of an overwhelming force." H.W.S. Cleveland, Hints to Riflemen 181 (1864).

By the time the Fourteenth Amendment was before Congress, the Henry had been improved into the Winchester Model 1866 rifle, which could hold up to 18 rounds, depending on caliber. It was a major commercial success, especially in the West. The Model 1866 was succeeded by the Model 1873, with capacity from 6 to 25. Both Winchesters have deservedly been called "the gun that won the West." The Model 1892 (15 rounds) was a favorite of Annie Oakley, and, later, of John Wayne.

As an alternative to the lever action, the pump action (the user pushes and pulls a slide underneath the barrel to load the next round) came on the market in the last quarter of the century, most famously with the 15-round Colt Lightning of 1884.

The next year brought the first functional semiautomatic firearm, the Mannlicher Model 1885. Before the end of the century, numerous models of semiautomatic pistols were on the market; some of them had magazines over 10 rounds, such as the Luger M1899, with an optional 32 round magazine.

As always, repeaters were essential for defense against group attacks. That is why anti-lynching crusader Ida B. Wells and other civil rights activists urged black people to buy repeating rifles for defense against lynch mobs. For the same reason, the Florida legislature in 1893 enacted the first American controls on particular types of firearms, after a repeating rifle was used to deter a lynch mob.

Magazine controls: In the 1920s and early 1930s, alcohol prohibition gave a tremendous boost to organized crime and intergang warfare. Starting in 1927, six states enacted laws regarding ammunition capacity: Rhode Island, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, California, and Virginia. None of these laws banned possession; some required a license or registration, or banned in-state sales, or simply forbade altering a firearm to change its original capacity (while allowing purchase of manufactured firearms with any capacity). A 1932 congressional statute for the District of Columbia banned semiautomatic firearms with a capacity of over 12.

All of the state laws were later repealed. The Heller case suggested that "longstanding" gun control laws have a better chance to be found constitutional than novel laws; to be "longstanding," a law must be "long" and "standing," and none of the repealed state laws qualify, since they are no longer standing. 1 Shorter O.E.D. 1625 (1993) ("adj. Of long standing; that has existed a long time, not recent."). No magazine ban currently in force is older than the 15-round limit enacted by New Jersey in 1990. And three decades is hardly enough to be longstanding, considering that DC's 1975 handgun had been in effect for 33 years until the 2008 Heller decision.

In sum, guns with ammunition capacity greater than 10 rounds have existed since the sixteenth century, were well-known to the Founders (including the Continental Congress), and were mass market consumer items by the time of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the Second Amendment's protection is not limited only to the types of arms that existed in 1791, the Second Amendment does protect the types of arms that did exist in 1791, and those included arms with ammunition capacity greater than 10.

NEXT: New Data Suggest Florida Cops Have Broad Power to Take Away People's Second Amendment Rights

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m tired of this “historical basis test” that seemingly only applies to the 2nd amendment…but none of the other amendments. You never see a “The first amendment doesn’t apply to radio or TV reporters, or to those who use computer-controlled printing presses, because those didn’t exist in 1790” argument made…

    Let alone all the other amendment.

    1. Your ignorance is astounding … Scalia’s Heller ruling RIDICULES the claim, by guntards who LIE saying his ruling would limit the protected weapons.to muskets. It protects modern forms of militia-style weapons, just as the 1st amendment protects modern forms of speech and printing, and the 4th protects against modern sear, Scalia explicitly argues why “M-16 rifles and the like” are NOT protected. Page 55

      https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

      (This will likely ENRAGE at least five guntards, who swallow tribal bullshit as eagerly as Bernie’s bots, on things they have NO firsthand knowledge about. Puppets screeching on a string)

      1. TheLibertyTruthTeller Said:
        …Scalia explicitly argues why “M-16 rifles and the like” are NOT protected…

        Point of order: The full context of the above quote is:
        …It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
        in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
        banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
        detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
        the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
        Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
        capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
        lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
        duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
        effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
        sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
        large…”

        The M-16 is a fully automatic firearm (i.e. “machine gun”). Semi automatic firearms and not and have never been “sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large”. They are and have been in common use by the average citizen for over 150 years. Nor does the shape, color, or accouterments, change the basic function of of a semi automatic firearm.

        Given that the quote from Heller above is clearly aimed at fully automatic weapons (“machine guns”), which are already regulated by the NFA and the FOPA of 1986, it has no bearing on any of the current discussions, and especially has no bearing on Prof. Kopel’s post about magazine capacity.

        1. Point of order: The full context of the above quote is:

          Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh

          I wasn’t responding to Kopel. I was correcting Armchair Lawyer’s blunder.

          Your own blunder is that “common usage for 150 years” has NO relevance at all to Heller, or to 2A. And you cite Heller FALSELY
          You eliminated the part that proves you wrong!!!

          It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
          effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
          sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
          large

          Here’s what you — or your bullshit source — missed. With explanations

          “It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.”

          PERHAPS only more sophisticated weapons can be as EFFECTIVE. AND

          “Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.

          The modern equivalent of a musket may be USELESS against today’s bombers and tanks. BUT

          But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right CANNOT CHANGE OUR INTERPRETATION OF THAT RIGHT

          NONE of that can change how the right is interpreted (in Miller)

          Question: Did you lie on purpose, or were you suckered by a liar?

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano continues claiming that only single-shot rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

            1. SHOW OF HANDS …. How many OTHER Gomers are too fucking stupid to know that the NRA was totally helpless against the assault weapons ban …. FOR TEN LONG YEARS?

              Umm, BECAUSE it was Constitutional. it could ONLY be repealed or expire. It expired.

              AND WHY ARE OUR MASS SHOOTINGS 3,000,000 PERCENT HIGHER THAN ENGLAND (adjusted for population)… WHICH HAD ONE MASS SHOOTING in 23 YEARS (five in 23 years, if adjusted for population.)

              NO RIGHTS ARE ABSOLUTE, if TWO absolute rights are in conflict? How would this Goober resolve a conflict between two rights. BOTH absolute.

              HE CANNOT … SO THE DUMBFUCK SAYS RIGHTS CANNOT BE IN CONFLICT. HOW FUCKING STUPID IS THAT?

              SHOW OF HANDS: How many are too stupid to have ever heard of:
              1) No Free Speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater. (an example from an actual ruling)
              2) Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

              BY DEFINITION: Two absolute rights are in conflict, when BOTH cannot be defended, ABSOLUTELY. duh. Abortion is the easiest example to explain, because BOTH rights — Life and Liberty — cannot be absolutely defended — for both individuals.
              Gomers CANNOT grasp this (or REFUSE to) 🙂

              Left – Right = Zero
              Both are authoritarian, trying to mandate their own values by force of law. Thuggery.

              1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano is assmad because he can’t read past the first page of Heller.

                1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano is assmad because he can’t read past the first page of Heller.I cited page 55.

                  YOU say Heller’s page 2 somehow repeals Heller’s page 1 .,.. and REFUSE to explain why.

                  I provide sources, links and page numbers … you a whiny pussy

                2. TheLibertyTruthTeller
                  February.12.2020 at 7:48 am
                  That’s all irrelevant. since the protected weapons are modern versions of weapons in common use at ratification, brought from home for militia duty … which would be muskets

                  Dumbfuck Hihnsano can’t remember what he typed just one day ago.

                  1. BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAA
                    PROVEN a liar, he switched to …. ILLITERACY?
                    STUPIDITY?
                    AN INTENTIONAL LIE

                    Dumbfuck Hihnsano can’t remember what he typed just one day ago.

                    TheLibertyTruthTeller
                    February.12.2020 at 7:48 am
                    That’s all irrelevant. since the protected weapons are modern versions of weapons in common use at ratification, brought from home for militia duty … which would be muskets

                    1) Muskets are the “weapons in common use at ratification”

                    2) The protected weapons are MODERN VERSIONS OF …. MUSKETS!!!

                    ****SHOW OF HANDS …
                    HOW MANY DON’T KNOW WHAT “MODERN VERSION” MEANS.

                    And HOW MANY TIMES must I expose his PSYCHO BULLSHIT??
                    https://reason.com/2020/02/11/magazines-over-10-rounds-were-well-known-to-the-founders/#comment-8127877

                  2. COWARD RAN AWAY FROM THIS CHALLENGE

                    YOU say Heller’s page 2 somehow repeals Heller’s page 1 .,.. and REFUSE to explain why.

                    Then again, that is a rhetorical question, phrased to ridicule his latest wacky assertion.

                    1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano is assmad that he’s not getting the gun bans he craves, thinks a ruling that said a handgun ban violated the 2nd Amendment validated handgun bans.

                    2. COWARD RAN AWAY FROM THIS CHALLENGE … AGAIN

                      YOU say Heller’s page 2 somehow repeals Heller’s page 1 .,.. and REFUSE to explain why.

                      Then again, that is a rhetorical question, phrased to ridicule his latest wacky assertion.

                      This latest is even crazier.

          2. You love to quote this but also love to get it wrong.

            He is saying despite out modern developments may have changed the impact of how militias work vs current firepower, that changes NOTHING about how the right is interpreted: and that interpretation is clearly that AR-15’s and other modern guns are completely and FULLY protected.

      2. No, he explicitly argues why they ARE protected, you are just too ignorant to understand that.

    2. AL….The gun grabbers will read this blog post and go bonkers.

      1. The guntards already went wacko.
        Armchair Lawyer is as bad as an actual lawyer!

        1. Yes you are!!

    3. We don’t actually know yet if there is a historical basis test for the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court hasn’t clarified what the test is under Heller.

      But why do you single out the First Amendment? There are other amendments, and history is relevant to the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment. Maybe not so much the Eighth Amendment, though certainly whatever was banned at the time of the founding is assumed to be a cruel and unusual punishment.

      There are serious debates about what the Second Amendment means. History is one basis, and only one, of many that can be used to interpret it. In contrast, the First Amendment has a 100 years of iterative common law doctrine telling us what it means. It’s different.

      1. We don’t actually know yet if there is a historical basis test for the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court hasn’t clarified what the test is under Heller.

        In Heller, Scalia literally ridiculed the question as being … stoopid of how rulings work.

        See proof here: https://reason.com/2020/02/11/magazines-over-10-rounds-were-well-known-to-the-founders/#comment-8126113

      2. Maybe not so much the Eighth Amendment, though certainly whatever was banned at the time of the founding is assumed to be a cruel and unusual punishment.

        That’s for SCOTUS to determine. It’s their job. What judges and tribunals have done since the 1500s.

        For example. slavery was banned in England, by the King’s Court. in 1772 … four years before our revolution … as a violation of the Common Law. It applied to only England and Wales. (It was banned for the entire Commonwealth, in 1833, by Parliament) Some say that’s WHY we revolted … to retain slavery if England banned it for all its colonies … just as Texas left Mexico, when Mexico banned slavery and gave Texas a deadline.

        Judges do NOT “invent” rights, they RECOGNIZE rights. For over 500 years. To illustrate, since fundamental human rights are innate and/or God-Given, all of humanity we had all such rights in the 3rd century. But they were useless then, right? And useless even now, for most of the human population.

        Point being, “God-given rights” are totally useless, unless others agree to defend them.

  2. I just hope the predictable backlash against gun nuttery by modern, educated, accomplished America doesn’t overrun a right to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home.

    1. I agree with you, but I probably have less confidence than you that the agenda of gun nutjobs like Schumer, Bloomberg, or Pelosi will be halted by modern, educated, accomplished America as a whole. I am much more hopeful though that the Supreme Court will halt their agenda.

      1. I doubt an enlarged Supreme Court would vindicate gun buttery.

        1. Never challenge the hopelessly brainwashed.

  3. The Chambers Repeating Flintlock of 1790 had 224 rounds of ammunition and no way of stopping it once you fired it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCuVMx5h1x0

    As always, Ian is worth watching.

    1. It would be more convincing if they had video of a replica actually being fired.

      1. It sounds more like an ancient pipe bomb than a viable “machine gun” to me.

      2. Yes if only the US Navy of 1812 had video cameras we’d be debating the fakeness of the video rather than the existence of the firearm.

        1. 1812 is irrelevant.

        2. What part of “replica” did you not understand?

        3. I’m not disputing the existence of the gun, I’m disputing it’s usability.

          A lot of early innovative guns were as likely to kill the user as they were to kill his target.

          1. That’s all irrelevant. since the protected weapons are modern versions of weapons in common use at ratification, brought from home for militia duty … which would be muskets … Law of the Land for over 80 years, more recently confirmed by Scalia in Heller.

        4. In the video you linked to, Ian actually mentions that the Dutch bought one and tried to test fire it and it blew up on them.

          1. He also mentions that they were used by the USN in the war of 1812 and were highly effective.

            1. Totally irrelevant to the issue here (2A)

    2. Relevance????

  4. “Regular mass shootings of innocent children were well-known to the Founders”

    Wow, that was some headline you put on your post.

    1. Like that massacre that happened in Boston?

      Idiot.

    2. Of course “mass shooting” has been defined as 4 or more victims, so it would be quite possible with 1 revolver, or for that matter, a half dozen pre-loaded muzzle loading flint lock single shot pistols.

      1. Or for that matter, a single shot rifle with sufficient energy. Any of the big game rifles would do it – go right through 4 people, as they’re designed for either very long range or game that’s thicker than 4 people.

        1. Did not exist at ratification.

      2. Of course “mass shooting” has been defined as 4 or more victims

        And as two. There is no legal definition.

        Using 4, our own mass shootings are 3,000,000% higher than England (adjusted for population). England had ONE in the last 23 years.

        1. Perhaps you can move to England?

          Huge increase in crime across UK with 29% increase in both rape and robbery

          By comparison: US: 130,603 rapes in 2016 for a rate of 32 per hundred thousand population
          England and Wales: 48,773 rapes in 2017 for a rate of 84 per hundred thousand population – nearly three times as much!

          1. Rape and robbery are not shooting crimes. Gomer.
            And that was 21 years AFTER the regulations that essentially ended MASS shootings, so no bullshit causation please.
            And FAILS to even dent our 3 MILLION percent higher mass shootings.

            We can also compare “intentional homicides” and you lose AGAIN.
            Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population.
            5.3 United States
            3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
            1.7 Canada
            0.9 UK

            Here, we’re “only” about 600% higher than UK
            Nearly twice as high as Europe and Asia
            and a mere 300% higher than Canada.

            My turn
            1) if teachers are thought to be armed, who will be shot first?

            2) MIGHT we have so many ARMED bad guys … BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work like the nuclear arms race did?

            3) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

            4) What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict? Which prevails? Who decides? By what standard? And why? (Since BEFORE our founding)

            NOT advocating gun grabs, just want HONEST debate – the difference between libertarians and the bellowing blowhards of the Authoritarian Right and Left.

            ”shall not be infringed” They beat their chests and bellow … nonsense, evasions and bullshit. … PROVES how they’ve become witless tools of the political elites. The ISSUE is WHICH ARMS shall not be infringed. Why is this rocket science to these people?

            Left – Right = Zero
            Libertarians: speaking Truth to Power, both left and right, for over 50 years. Listen now to their death rattle, as their time expired long ago.

            1. It’s hard to pick any one topic in your gibberish, so I’ll just continue to post inconvenient facts. With the sole exception of homicide, the UK is a more violent country than the US. You are more likely to become the victim of a crime of violence in the UK than in the US.

              UK is violent crime capital of Europe (Telegraph)

              Quote:
              It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe… By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population.

              1. With the sole exception of homicide,

                HEY DUMBASS.. WHAT I CITED IS “INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE”

                ONE MORE TIME:

                1) if teachers are thought to be armed, who will be shot first?

                2) MIGHT we have so many ARMED bad guys … BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work like the nuclear arms race did?

                3) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

                4) What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict? Which prevails? Who decides? By what standard? And why? (Since BEFORE our founding)

                1. Dude, you are copying and pasting the same crap from post to post. It doesn’t work.

                  Another inconvenient fact for your paradise of Britain: At the turn of the 20th century, the UK had virtually no gun control laws and very little crime. Any person could buy and carry a revolver in his pocket anywhere in the UK. The right to keep and bear arms was slowly extinguished over the 20th century while the crime rate has soared. See page 14 of this UK parliamentary report for a fascinating graph. It shows that the number of indictable offences per thousand population in 1900 was 2.4 and in 1997 the figure was 89.1 – an increase of 37-fold. Since the early 1960s, the homicide rate has more than doubled.

                  UK House of Commons Library: A Century of Change: Trends in UK Statistics Since 1900 (see page 14)

                2. *****YOU PROVED ME RIGHT AGAIN, CHUMP!!!

                  I KEEP REPEATING, BECAUSE YOU KEEP LYING AND DENYING … WITH THE SAME FUCKING LIE
                  **AND NOW AN EVEN CRAZIER ONE!

                  The right to keep and bear arms was slowly extinguished over the 20th century while the crime ratehas soared.

                  The HOMICIDE rate COLLAPSED … and you just ADMITTED gun regulations increased!!!!!

                  *****They have 0.9 HOMICIDES per 100,000
                  *****We have 5.3. And YOU PROVED WHY!

                  Since the early 1960s, the homicide rate has more than doubled.

                  *****LYING SACK OF SHIT
                  *****FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE
                  • The rate of homicides peaked in the mid-1990s. In 1995 14.5 homicides were committed per million of population.
                  • Since the early 1960s the number of homicides per million population has more than doubled.

                  *******THINK: (LOL) THE ENTIRE INCREASE WAS 1960-1995. WHY DID YOU LIE ABOUT WHAT IS IMMEDIATELY ABOVE YOUR BULLSHIT?

                  **THE BBC DATA FOR MASS SHOOTINGS — THAT YOU’VE SEEN FIVE TIMES — OPENS WITH
                  “England’s 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years” BBC

                  ******PAY ATTENTION. I’ll TRY to dumb it down.
                  1) YOUR source says homicides SKYROCKETED from 1960-1995, then DECLINED SHARPLY STARTING IN 1996. WHAT HAPPENED IN 1996?? 🙂

                  In 1996 …. MY source (BBC) says UK tightened gun control … and MASS shootings PLUMMETED!
                  BWAAAAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAAA

                  ****HEY GENIUS, YOU JUST DEFENDED STRICT GUN CONTROL!!

                  1. Dude, you are copying and pasting the same crap from post to post

                    Can you hear me NOW? (smirk)

                    THANKS FOR PROVING THAT STRICTER GUN REGULATION WORKS (after correcting your shameless misquote of your own source.

    3. Given the regular attacks on the frontier, the horrors of attacks during the Revolutionary and other wars and the standard crimes of every age, yeah, you can be pretty sure that such shootings of innocents were well-known to the Founders.

      1. Relevance????

        1. I don’t know why it’s relevant, but gun banners seem to think so, and are continually making fraudulent claims on the topic, like saying the founders couldn’t have imagined our current level of gun violence. (That’s right: They couldn’t have imagined it would get this low; It was much, much higher in their era.)

          1. Irrelevant, since the only protected weapons are the modern equivalent of weapons in common use at ratification, brought from home for militia service — muskets. Law of the Land for over 80 years, and reaffirmed by Scalia in Heller.

            The level of gun violence has absolutely no relevance to the Founders, The problem is guntards who somehow believe 2A is some sort of absolute right, when no rights are absolute. This is yet another issue where both extremes are … crackers.

            1. You keep saying that, but that isn’t what Heller, or Miller for that matter, says.

              Heller said nothing about “at ratification”. It said, ” in common use for lawful purposes.”

              Miller said “in common use at the time”, but the time in question is the present. Note that Miller would have been protected in his possession of a sawn off shotgun if the Court had been put on notice that such had military utility.

              The majority decision in Heller misconstrued the Miller decision almost as much as the dissent did, due, I assume, to being uncomfortable with the notion that it was specifically ownership of military arms that was protected. But even Miller as misconstrued by Scalia doesn’t support YOUR position.

              1. You’re full of shit, Brett. Proof is cited, for both rulings, here.
                https://reason.com/2020/02/11/magazines-over-10-rounds-were-well-known-to-the-founders/#comment-8126347

                You talk. I prove.

                1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn’t like the fact that Scalia also said that the handgun ban was a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

                  1. (My attitude and boldface in self-defense of yet another unprovoked assault, by a cyber-bully who has been stalking me for over a year … because I REPEATEDLY ridicule his gooberism, which “triggers” the precious snowflake)

                    ALT-RIGHT GOMER IS BABBLING AGAIN!

                    PAY ATTENTION.

                    *****HANDGUNS WERE IN COMMON USE AT RATIFICATION!
                    NO SHIT!! (sneer)

                    THAT’S WHY SCALIA HAD TO REAFIRM WHICH TYPES OF FIREARM ARE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, AS FIRST RULED IN 1939, US V MILLER …. WHERE YOU ALSO BABBLE AND LIE INCOHERENTLY.

                    Anything else, Gomer? 🙂

                    (IS Gomer AGAIN stalking me down an entire page with more of his infantile assaults?…. )

                  2. (My attitude and boldface in self-defense of yet another unprovoked assault, by a cyber-bully who has been stalking me for over a year … because I REPEATEDLY ridicule his gooberism, which “triggers” the precious snowflake)

                    ALT-RIGHT GOMER IS BABBLING AGAIN!

                    PAY ATTENTION.

                    *****HANDGUNS WERE IN COMMON USE AT RATIFICATION!
                    NO SHIT!! (sneer)

                    THAT’S WHY SCALIA HAD TO REAFIRM WHICH TYPES OF FIREARM ARE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, AS FIRST RULED IN 1939, US V MILLER …. WHERE YOU ALSO BABBLE AND LIE INCOHERENTLY.

                    Anything else, Gomer? 🙂

                    Is Gomer AGAIN stalking me down an entire page with more of his infantile assaults?….

                    1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends that he didn’t just say this

                      TheLibertyTruthTeller
                      February.12.2020 at 7:48 am
                      That’s all irrelevant. since the protected weapons are modern versions of weapons in common use at ratification, brought from home for militia duty … which would be muskets

                    2. HOW FUCKING STUPID IS THE PSYCHO STALKER?
                      ….. ILLITERATE!!

                      Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends that he didn’t just say this

                      TheLibertyTruthTeller
                      February.12.2020 at 7:48 am
                      That’s all irrelevant. since the protected weapons are modern versions of weapons in common use at ratification, brought from home for militia duty … which would be muskets

                      hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

                      1) Muskets ARE the “weapons in common use at ratification , brought from home for militia duty.?

                      2) Thus, the MODERN version of MUSKETS are what both Miller and Heller ruled were the ONLY rifles protected by 2A

                      Scalia actually RIDICULED you wacky blunder, as described here …
                      https://reason.com/2020/02/11/magazines-over-10-rounds-were-well-known-to-the-founders/#comment-8126376

                      P.S. That’s on page 8 … which also ridicules your crazy-ass lie that I can’t read past page one.

                    3. Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends that he didn’t just say this

                      MY STALKER QUOTES ME SAYING “modern versions” OF A MUSKET!!! … THEN LIES ABOUT HIS OWN CITE!!!!

                      Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends that he didn’t just say this

                      TheLibertyTruthTeller
                      February.12.2020 at 7:48 am
                      That’s all irrelevant. since the protected weapons are modern versions of weapons in common use at ratification, brought from home for militia duty … which would be muskets

                      FEEL his raging hatred!

                    4. Dumbfuck Hihnsano is assmad because I quoted his own words.

                    5. You were PROVEN a PSYCHO..

                      NOT assmad … peed my pants LAUGHING

                    6. Dumbfuck Hihnsano shrieks like a useless bitch because I quoted his own words.

            2. Lol, that’s not how the constitution works bud. “Conges shall make no law” and “the right of the people shall not be infringed” are prohibitions against government, not grants to the people. Calm yourself.

              1. Scalia dealt with your confusion in Heller.

                Heller Ruling Page One
                1(f). United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia,

                2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: …Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

                Here’s the way it REALLY works. NO right is absolute, if in conflict with any other fundamental right … since all such rights are absolute, by the definition of unalienable.

                How would YOU resolve a conflict between two rights, both of them absolute? There are two common examples. Have you not heard of these?
                a) No free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater,
                b) Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

                Anything else I can clarify for you?

                1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn’t want you to read to page 2, because he continues to pretend that it doesn’t exist:

                  3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the 2nd Amendment.

                  That’s why Dumbfuck Hihnsano, aka Michael Hihn, who declared bankruptcy and whose family hates his guts, continues to claim that the 2nd Amendment only protects single-shot muskets.

                  1. (posted in defense of yet another unprovoked assault by the stalking psycho — hence my boldface and snark)

                    Is Gomer AGAIN stalking me down an entire page with more of his infantile assaults?….

                    YESS! AND HE KEEPS GETTING CRAZIER!!

                    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn’t want you to read to page 2, because he continues to pretend that it doesn’t exist:
                    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the 2nd Amendment.

                    *** SHOW OF HANDS
                    ANYONE ELSE CRAZY ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THAT SOMEHOW REPEALS WHAT I CITED???? (SMIRK)
                    OR THAT THE TWO ARE EVEN RELATED?????
                    SCALIA’S HELLER “2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: …Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

                    ****HOW BIG A HATE-SPEWING PSYCHO IS HE???

                    That’s why Dumbfuck Hihnsano, aka Michael Hihn, who declared bankruptcy and whose family hates his guts,

                    One
                    Sick
                    Fuck

                    continues to claim that the 2nd Amendment only protects single-shot muskets.

                    THE MODERN EQUIVALENT OF WEAPONS IN COMMON USE AT RATIFICATION …. WHICH WERE SINGLE-SHOT MUSKETS AND FLINTLOCK PISTOLS AS I STATED AND DOCUMEMENTED HERE, LYING SACK OF SHIT. EVEN SCALIA RIDICULED GOMER!!!
                    https://reason.com/2020/02/11/magazines-over-10-rounds-were-well-known-to-the-founders/#comment-8126113

                    (The trigger lock requirement was only PART of the guns-at-home requirement. DC residents were required to keep their guns UNLOADED *plus* a trigger lock. AGAIN, this has NOTHING to do with what I cited ,… and how low must Gomer’s IQ be to claim that Scalia’s Page Two REPEALS HIS OWN PAGE ONE?! (snort)

                    THAT stoopid.

                  2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn’t want you to read to page 2, because he continues to pretend that it doesn’t exist:

                    I cited page 2,

                    THIS, PSYCHO:

                    <blockquote2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues…

                    Miller’s holding (1939) that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.Pages 54-56 are a VERY lengthy list of gun prohibitions at and around ratification. Scalia was am originalist; NOBODY here, who opposes any and all regulations is even close.

                    READ PAGES 54-56, LOSER.

                  3. TheLibertyTruthTeller
                    February.12.2020 at 7:48 am
                    That’s all irrelevant. since the protected weapons are modern versions of weapons in common use at ratification, brought from home for militia duty … which would be muskets

                    Dumbfuck Hihnsano forgot that he typed this only yesterday.

                    1. I’m proud of PROVING YOU WRONG. Fir maybe the 100th time … That the modern version of single shot muskets are the ONLY rifles protected by the second amendment … despite your psychopathic lies (that keep changing as each one explodes in your puss)

                      Forget the bullshit about handguns, or PROVE that
                      a) Citizens brought handguns to defend America
                      b) Because they were either as stupid as you, or did not own a musket for hunting.
                      (smirk)

                    2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks a rifle and a musket are the same thing.

                    3. Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks no one in America owned handguns, parrots the Bellesiles thesis that was debunked years ago.

          2. That’s right: They couldn’t have imagined it would get this low; It was much, much higher in their era.)

            I missed THAT wacky claim the first time through.

        2. re: “Relevance????” – Ask captcrisis. He’s the one who brought it up. I’m just pointing out that he’s wrong.

          1. Diversion.

            you can be pretty sure that such shootings of innocents were well-known to the Founders.

            Relevance???

            1. Really? You’re having that much trouble reading? Okay, I’ll spell it out. User captcrisis made the comment that “Regular mass shootings of innocent children were well-known to the Founders” implying sarcastically that such mass shootings of innocents are recent and were unknown to the Founders. Captcrisis is demonstrably wrong. Massacres and other violent attacks on innocents happened with distressing regularity in the years leading up to the Founding.

              1. Okay, I’ll spell it out

                WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH

                YOU AGAIN FAIL TO EXPLAIN WHY THE FOUNDERS KNOWING SUCH A THING HAS ANY RELEVANCE AT ALL..

      2. And they made darned sure that massacres of innocents could continue, via the 2A. Well — I have to admit that’s an argument I’ve never heard before.

        1. Have a 12-year-old explain to you what he said.

          1. That’s about 10 years older than someone you could actually understand, Mikey.

        2. No, they made sure that parents and other good citizens would have a chance at protecting those innocents and not be left defenseless in a hostile world.

          1. That was secondary to their intention.
            Do you know ANYTHING about this issue?

            The PURPOSE was to make sure a later government could not restore a standing army, by disarming the people, thus destroying the militia alternative. This is VERY elementary.

      3. Rossami, indeed those horrors were familiar to at least some among the founders. Washington himself perpetrated several of them.

        They were military-style attacks on Indian villages in upstate New York, made during the Revolution. Washington created expeditionary forces to march out to the finger lakes region, and burn down whatever villages they could find, while murdering whoever among the Indians had not escaped in advance. Expedition members were astonished to find Indians living in villages built of wooden houses, with glass windows, and vast acreage under English-style cultivation.

        Alas for this thread, no large magazines in evidence. Probably, most of the butchery was done with bayonets and tomahawks. Scalpings, and spitting Indian children on bayonets figured in accounts that horrified even some among the perpetrators who did not chance to be right at the exciting scenes of action.

        It was regarded as neither here nor there that the villages in question did not even belong to particularly hostile Indians—more like occasional allies of the Americans. The violence was justified as exemplary policy, to convince Indians of whatever stripe to move westward, and make room for land claims by founding-era land developers, including Washington himself.

        For some reason, it has taken until 2018 for this thoroughly-documented episode of founding-era gun lore to be recognized, researched and published. These events were not in my curriculum at all—not in high school, college, or graduate school. I bet it will be a cold day in hell before it gets published in any Texas school curriculum. The book is, The Indian World of George Washington, Colin G. Calloway, Oxford University Press.

        That said, it is an astonishing book. The New York expeditions are just a small part of the whole. I read it bug-eyed, not only for the completely undreamed-of insights into Indian culture it served up, but maybe even more for the realization of how much had been documented and finally researched. Much of this is material that history students had long been taught was simply lost to the past, for want of records.

        1. Is this like the People’s History of the United States, by Communist sympathizer Howard Zinn?

  5. Interesting that the latest legislation working through the Virginia legislature limits magazines to 12 rounds. Makes you wonder if whoever proposed it has money in a magazine manufacturer, since most replacement magazines are 10, 15, or more rounds, and hardly anyone makes a 12 rounder.

    1. (yawn) Single-shot muskets were the standard rifle, brought from home for militia service, thus even Scalia’s Heller confirmed the 1939 US v Miller ruling, that only modern versions of weapons in common use at ratification are protected.

      Full stop.

      1. Please, at least refrain from lying about the Heller decision, it’s publicly available, we can all read it, and many of us have read it.

        It said “in common use”, not “in common use at ratification”.

        1. You’re full of shit. Also confused. Heller did NOTHING but reaffirm US v Miller (1939) … in THAT part of the ruling … so you OBVIOUSLY never read it. And here’s the proof that you’re wrong.

          We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
          explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
          “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think
          that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual
          weapons.”

          https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
          Page 55

          I’m well aware of all the lies and mind games of you people, so here’s the exact words AND context from Miller.

          The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves AND OF THE KIND IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME.

          “common use at the time” …. all one sentence … the TIME PERIOD does not change in mid-sentence, DUH, So it’s “in common use” AT RATIFICATION. Period. Non-debatable.

          I can demolish any lie you claim, with a link and exact page number.
          You’re either a liar or a gullible victim.

          1. The “time” in question is the time when they were expected to appear. Not the time of ratification.

            1. THAT’S EVEN CRAZIER!!

              1. Not as crazy as your dumb fucking ass continuing to lie that Heller prohibits ownership of anything but a single-shot musket.

      2. In 1939 the modern versions of the standard-issue regulation military rifle were the M1903 Springfield bolt action and the M1 Garand semi-auto army rifles.

        That is presuming that the prefatory clause is a limiting clause. Current SCOTUS finding is that it is an example of why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

        DC v Heller 2008 Held:
        1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

        1. In 1939 the modern versions of the standard-issue regulation military rifle were the M1903 Springfield bolt action and the M1 Garand semi-auto army rifle

          Impossible. A semi-automatic cannot be a modern version of a musket.

          That is presuming that the prefatory clause is a limiting clause.

          It IS a limiting clause. which is WHY semi-automatics are not protected, which Scalia’s Heller described in great detail. Also why the NRA was powerless against the entire life of the assault weapons ban.

          Current SCOTUS finding is that it is an example of why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

          Wrong again, per Scalia. It’s an example of WHY the protected weapons are only modern versions of the rifles used for militia service at ratification. Muskets.

          DC v Heller 2008 Held:
          1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

          Only for WHICH firearms are protected. Scalia was QUITE clear on that, undeniably clear.

          https://reason.com/2020/02/11/magazines-over-10-rounds-were-well-known-to-the-founders/#comment-8126347

          1. He sure was clear, Dumbfuck:

            3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the 2nd Amendment.

            1. Has NOTHING to do with WHICH weapons are protected by 2A …. HANDGUNS WERE IN COMMON USE AT RATIFICATION! (sneer)

              The trigger lock was only PART of DC’s law for keeping guns at home, Slick. They also had to be unloaded. NOT compatible with ownership as an INDIVIDUAL right.

              That’s WHY Scalia had to go on, and define WHICH weapons are an individual right. And WHY you keep changing the subject.

              1. TheLibertyTruthTeller
                February.12.2020 at 7:48 am
                That’s all irrelevant. since the protected weapons are modern versions of weapons in common use at ratification, brought from home for militia duty … which would be muskets

                1. ONE MORE TIME
                  1) If YOU were in an 18th century militia, would YOU defend against a foreign threat by bringing … A HANDGUN?

                  2) Other than you …. how many OTHER 18th century homes had NO MUSKETS … and fed their families by hunting with .. HANDGUNS?

                  (pees pants laughing)

                  1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks no one in America owned handguns, parrots a long-debunked thesis found to be fraudulent.

  6. “…if the British had manufactured enough of them) and the Nock Valley Gun (which shot seven rounds at once)….”

    I think it’s Nock VOLLEY gun, not valley (“volley” makes more sense, since we’re talking about 7 rounds being fired simultaneously, via separate barrels)

    1. But NOT in common use, NOT brought from home for militia service.
      Or … explain why colonists would keep a 7-shot, multi-barrel rifle at home, for personal use.

      1. Sigh! You know it kind of ruins your argument for historical knowledge of what firearms people would and would not have when yours is clearly empty of it.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5yZJugzGXM

        Here you go – seven barrels, designed for hunting. There are many other examples from the period in question.

        I would say “try harder” but frankly I think you’d be likely to prolapse yourself if you pushed it any harder.

        1. (boldface to enhance the ridicule of KiwiLibs REALLY DUMB smart-ass comment)

          ANOTHER MASSIVE FAIL!
          HERE is the challenge that KiwiLib RAN AWAY FROM, like a coward.

          But NOT in common use, NOT brought from home for militia service.
          Or … explain why colonists would keep a 7-shot, multi-barrel rifle at home, for personal use.

          Is this ALSO the most cowardly diversion on the page?

          Here you go – seven barrels, designed for hunting. There are many other examples from the period in question.,

          NOT IN COMMON USE.
          NOT BROUGHT TO MILITIA SERVICE.
          ****AND YOUR OWN VIDEO PROVES YOU FULL OF SHIT!!!
          1) Says they were “very expensive” … 70 FUCKING DOLLARS … thus NOT in common use.
          2) ONLY 500 WERE EVER MADE, CHUMP (at 6:41)
          3) THE ONE HE SHOWS WAS PURHASED IN FRANCE, (at 6:00), A FRENCH RESELLER’S NAME ON THE BARREL
          ***** SO ALL 500 WERE NOT EVEN SOLD IN AMERICA!!!!!!
          4) “INTENDED AS A LONG-RANGE REPLACEMENT FOR A SHOTGUN” (0:55) … TELL US HOW MANY SHOTGUNS WERE BROUGHT TO MILITIA SERVICE. HAHAHAHA

          ***AND VERY GULLIBLE
          1) There were seven barrels, arranged in a circle, the total circle seems no more than 2″ in diameter.
          2) Each barrel fired a rifled bullet …. for greater accuracy at a greater distance …. BUT … OMFG
          3) The bullets SOMEHOW expanded into a TWENTY INCH CIRCLE … for larger game … despite traveling down a lengthy and rifled barrel!!! (To clarify, that would require each bullet to follow a different path)
          4) TELL US — how could their cluster spread from 2″ to 20″ at 100 yards … THEN WHAT???

          THINK VERY HARD NOW… WHY WERE THERE SEVEN BARRELS?????

          I would say “try harder” but frankly I think you’d be likely to prolapse yourself if you pushed it any harder.It took no effort at all, to PUBLICLY HUMILIATE YOUR SORRY ASS.

          Again — Guntards are as low IQ here, as Bernie Bros are on inequality and health care. They both believe what they WANT to believe, and are VERY easily suckered … as was KiwiLib here …. WHO TOTALLY FAILED TO EVEN ADDRESS THE CHALLENGE … WHICH MAKES HIS SNARK EVEN MORE RIDICULOUS (if possible)!!!

          Anything else?

  7. “1490 and 1530, with guns that fired 10 consecutive rounds.”

    The only thing I could find that would match this date range is this multi-barrel matchlock arquebus. However, it only has seven barrels, and the trigger and hammer only seem capable of engaging the main barrel. So it seems more likely it would be a volley gun (fires all barrels essentially at the same time) or it’s not a practical repeater.

  8. “A 1580 gun could fire 16 shots. Once the user pressed the trigger, these guns would continue to fire until the ammunition was exhausted.”

    You are describing a volley gun, not something that would be considered a repeater in the modern sense.

  9. What a crock of shit. He closes by saying repeaters were NOT mass market items until about the Fourteenth Amendment. WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH

    And since 1939, (US v Miller) protected weapons have been defined as … in common use at ratification … brought from home for militia service.” The Fourteenth was much later. duh Also confirmed by Scalia in Heller.

    And, of course, the NRA was totally helpless against the assault weapons ban for 10 long years. It could only be repealed or expire. It expired.

    Guntards are lied to as badly as the progtards who BELEEB the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes. Puppets on strings.

    So sad to see Kopel now at Volokh Conspiracy — as Reason’s alt-right mentality now infects what was once a objective source on constitutional matters.

    Libertarians have long been part of America’s growing Voiceless Majority 🙁

    1. Here is the full text of the US v Miller decision.

      You will find that your claimed definition of protected weapons is nowhere to be found.

      The important bit is this:

      Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

      Which is actually wrong on the facts, probably because Miller had died before the Supreme Court heard this appeal, so the briefing was rather one sided.

      Short barreled shot guns were standard issue for US troops in the trench warfare of WWI

      1. I think we actually dodged a bullet in US v Miller, though. It would have been worse if it hadn’t been a trial in abstentia.

        The case came after “the switch in time that saved Nine”, and the Supreme court was no longer in the business of upholding parts of the Constitution the government found inconvenient. Had Miller been alive and represented, the feds would still have won, that was preordained. But the Supreme court would have comprehensively ruled against the 2nd amendment to hand them that win, instead of ruling on the narrowest basis possible, that they merely hadn’t heard anything contradicting the government’s position.

        It’s still irritating, though, the way that case has been stood on its head: The Court literally ruled that Miller’s ownership of the gun would have been constitutionally protected if it had been established it was suitable for military use, and remanded for that determination. Rather than standing for the principle that military arms aren’t protected, it literally ruled that ownership of such arms is exactly what is protected.

        1. YOU LIE. Proven just below.

        2. Miller was a setup as recounted in a 2008 law review article:
          “Part II recounts the history of the case. It shows Jack Miller was a career criminal and government informant. It finds Miller was a Second Amendment test case arranged by the government and designed to support the constitutionality of federal gun control. And Part III analyzes Miller in light of this history.”

          1. Cute. You support your wacko conspiracy theory with something that looks like a link, but is not.

            So I searched for the text, and it’s NOT a law review article. It also NEVER addresses the issue of which weapons are protected.
            Guntards are as easily manipulated as Bernie Bros.

            Now tell us how and why Antonin Scalia was part of this diabolical conspiracy! Was the dude from Kenya, Obama, part of it? 🙂

            And what about all those space aliens in Roswell, NM?

            1. 3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the 2nd Amendment.

              1. ANOTHER cowardly diversion from the topic

                HANDGUNS WERE IN COMMON USE AT RATIFICATION — EAXCTLY WITHIN THE RESTRICTIONS DETAILED IN BOTH MILLER AND HELLER..

                YOU KEEP REFUSING TO EXPLAINS HOW PAGE TWO OF HELLER SOMEHOW REPEALS PAGE ONE OF HELLLER (SMIRK)

                1. TheLibertyTruthTeller
                  February.12.2020 at 7:48 am
                  That’s all irrelevant. since the protected weapons are modern versions of weapons in common use at ratification, brought from home for militia duty … which would be muskets

                  1. FOR RETARDS … FIFTH REPEAT (so far)

                    TheLibertyTruthTeller
                    February.12.2020 at 7:48 am
                    That’s all irrelevant. since the protected weapons are modern versions of weapons in common use at ratification, brought from home for militia duty … which would be muskets

                    I’ll …. go …. slower

                    1) Muskets …. were … the … weapons ….in …. common …. use …, at …. ratification

                    2) So … protected …. weapons … are …;. modern versions …. of … MUSKETS!

                    (Red Rocks insists HE would have brought a HANDGUN … which means, either

                    1) He’s ALSO fucking stupid enough to leave his musket at home … OR

                    2) He had NO musket at home … and fed his family by hunting with … A FLINTLOCK HANDGUN!!!!

                    (My stalker be REALLY psycho)

                    1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano continues to believe a long-debunked academic thesis that no one owned handguns in colonial America.

          2. For those actually interested, here’s the article:

            THE PECULIAR STORY OF UNITED STATES V. MILLER
            http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf

      2. ABSOLUTE PROOF – SLYFELD IS FULL OF SHIT

        You will find that your claimed definition of protected weapons is nowhere to be found.

        LOOK AGAIN, CHUMP.
        I QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU DENY HERE.

        https://reason.com/2020/02/11/magazines-over-10-rounds-were-well-known-to-the-founders/#comment-8126347

        Slyfeld’s BULLSHIT can be proven, at HIS link … with a word search for THE EXACT WORDS I QUOTED. Search for “in common use at the time.” (with quotes) And confirm THIS as the context.
        “bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

        That is also cited by Scalia, page 55 of Heller, at the link I cite at the top of this.

        Which is actually wrong on the facts, probably because Miller had died before the Supreme Court heard this appeal, so the briefing was rather one sided.

        That’s even crazier, but part of guntard brainwashing.

        Short barreled shot guns were standard issue for US troops in the trench warfare of WWI

        It’s crackers to slip a rozzer, the dropsy in snide.

        P.S. Even worse for you, the NRA was totally helpless against the assault weapons ban … for ten long years … it could only be repealed or expired. It expired. Ooops. 🙂

        1. Abolitionists were helpless against Jim Crow for a lot longer than that, thanks to the Slaugherhouse decisions. Sometimes the Supreme court is just determined to be wrong, for decades at a time.

          To quote US v Miller: “The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.”

          It follows that, if they had taken such judicial notice, the Second amendment WOULD have been held to guarantee the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

          The actual holding of Miller was that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to private ownership of such weapons as are suitable for militia purposes.

          1. OMG …. Brett now CONFIRMS WHAT I PROVED!!!

            The actual holding of Miller was that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to private ownership of such weapons as are suitable for militia purposes.

            At ratification … as PROVEN here:
            https://reason.com/2020/02/11/magazines-over-10-rounds-were-well-known-to-the-founders/#comment-8126347

  10. Once again, the historical method offered is, “History encompasses everything, the Constitution is part of history, therefore everything is in the Constitution.”

    That is not how history works.

    1. This is all rather irrelevant, in as much as the 2nd amendment’s protection is no more limited to arms available at the time it was ratified, than the 1st amendment’s protection is limited to hand operated offset printing presses.

      But it can be entertaining to demonstrate that gun controllers’ arguments are invalid even on their own terms.

      1. Sorry Brett, but Scalia LITERALLY ridiculed your wacky argument, in Heller. “bordering on the frivolous…” 🙂

        This is all rather irrelevant, in as much as the 2nd amendment’s protection is no more limited to arms available at the time it was ratified, than the 1st amendment’s protection is limited to hand operated offset printing presses.

        Bend over.

        Heller ruling, Scalia

        PAGE 8 “… Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, … and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search…

        How many times must I do this to you, Brett?

        1. You are misreading Scalia’s decision. You’re error has been explained to you patiently by multiple people. Copy-pasting the same screed dozens of times isn’t going to convince anyone.

          By the way, you might also want to know that you’re overuse of bolding and all-caps alienates the people you are trying to convince. If you really want to change minds, consider toning it down.

          1. You are misreading Scalia’s decision.HOW??? (snort)

            You’re error has been explained to you patiently by multiple people.

            HOW???
            ****DENIAL IS NOT AN EXPLANATION.
            ****I CITED THIS ONLY ONCE, CHUMP. LET’S REVIEW YOUR LATEST FUCKUP.

            Brett
            …the 2nd amendment’s protection is no more limited to arms available at the time it was ratified, than the 1st amendment’s protection is limited to hand operated offset printing presses.

            DIRECT Ridicule:
            PAGE 8 “… Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, … and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search…

            HOW COULD ROSSAMI HAVE SCREWED UP ANY WORSE? 🙂

            Copy-pasting the same screed dozens of times isn’t going to convince anyone.

            *** THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME!!! (sneer)
            AND YOU’RE A LIAR. I PROVE THE CASE ONCE, WITH LINKS AND PAGE NUMBERS. IF NEEDED, I LINK BACK TO THAT.

            STOP YOUR DAMN WHINING AND MAKE A CASE …. LIKE I ALWAYS DO … SOURCES AND PAGE NUMBERS.

            By the way, you might also want to know that you’re overuse of bolding and all-caps alienates the people you are trying to convince.

            WRONG AGAIN. It alienates the people I ridicule … IN SELF-DEFENSE.

            The people I post for are not tribal robots. If they accept you on faith alone … or me … they CANNOT be convinced. I write for people who think for themselves. based on evidence. Not puppets dancing on a string.

            You are misreading Scalia’s decision.HOW??? (snort)
            HOW???
            HOW???
            HOW???
            CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

            1. re: ” It alienates the people I ridicule”

              Ah, so you have no interest in serious discussion or debate. Got it. I’ll stop feeding the troll now and just ignore you.

              1. Called out as a FRAUD, Rossami sinks even LOWER
                FIFTH REQUEST: HOW AM I MISREADING SCALIA’S DECISION?
                PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
                STOP BEING SUCH A WHINY PUSSY.

                : ” It alienates the people I ridicule … IN SELF-DEFENSE”

                Ah, so you have no interest in serious discussion or debate

                (SMIRK)
                HOW DO I MISREAD SCALIA’S HELLER? (snort)
                HOW???
                HOW???
                HOW???
                CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW, STALKER?

                1. 3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the 2nd Amendment.

                  Call yourself Kunta Kinte, Mikey, because I own your dumb ass.

                  1. HANDGUNS WERE IN COMMON USE AT RATIFICATION, CHUMP.

                    THE TRIGGER LOCK REQUIREMENT APPLIED TO GUMS AT HOME … YOU FORGOT THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE GUN ALSO BE UNLOADED … BOTH ARE IN CONFLICT WITH GUN OWNERSHIP AS AN INDIVISUAL RIGHT … WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHICH WEAPONS ARE PROTECTED.

                    And, NO … Page 2 of Heller does NOT repeal Page 1 of Heller.

                    1. TheLibertyTruthTeller
                      February.12.2020 at 7:48 am
                      That’s all irrelevant. since the protected weapons are modern versions of weapons in common use at ratification, brought from home for militia duty … which would be muskets

                    2. CALLED OUT AS A PSYCHO LIAR

                      RELOADS ANOTHER CRAZY ASSAULT

                    3. Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks Heller confirmed that any and all gun bans were legal.

      2. Brett, if you can find an example of a founding-era offset printing press used in the United States, that would be real historical magic.

        By the way, I am not the one trying to use incompetent history to underpin an originalist argument. That would be Kopel. Why don’t you correct him.

        1. Brett, if you can find an example of a founding-era offset printing press used in the United States, that would be real historical magic.

          Scalia ridiculed his “argument” — explicitly.
          https://reason.com/2020/02/11/magazines-over-10-rounds-were-well-known-to-the-founders/#comment-8126376

          1. Linking back you your own inane rantings elsewhere on this thread proves nothing.

            1. Linking back you your own inane rantings elsewhere on this thread proves nothing.

              That’s where the PROOF is that you’re full of shit, Slick.

              Since you INSIST, I will now prove you a PATHETIC LOSER

              inane rantings

              HERE IT IS AGAIN, CHUMP. Scalia’s RIDICULE

              Bend over.

              Heller ruling, Scalia
              PAGE 8 “… Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, … and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search…

              I ALSO PROVED THAT YOU INTENTIONALLY LIED ABOUT MILLER … YOUR QUOTE ELIMINATED THE PART THAT PROVES YOU FULL OF SHIT THERE TOO.
              ***HAVE YOU NO SHAME AT ALL???

              https://reason.com/2020/02/11/magazines-over-10-rounds-were-well-known-to-the-founders/#comment-8126362

              I also showed readers how to FIND your fucking lie INSIDE the actual Miller ruling.

              MORE proof: Guntards are as wacky here. as Bernie’s Bros are on inequality and health care. Unwitting tools of the political elites. For their “(un)Holy Cause.”

              “Mass movements do not need a god, but they do need devil. Hatred unites the TRUE BELIEVERS.”
              -Eric Hoffer, “The True Believers” (1950) — the seminal work on zealots and fanatics

  11. None of the weapons listed were widely available or even particularly useful. I cannot find any note of a Lorenzoni being fired, as it would appear no one dared, bet few dared at the time either. I doubt the founders pondered what was probably the equivalent of a 50000 dollar gun as militia equipment

    none of it really matters

    AS even Scalia noted, the gov’t has the right to regulate, and magazine size is not specifically called out for protection, now is it?

    If you didn’t get them with nine shots, the tenth is going to do you no good.

    I don’t find limitation of fairly standard firearms magazines particularly useful, but this argument is spurious

    1. AS even Scalia noted, the gov’t has the right to regulate, and magazine size is not specifically called out for protection, now is it?

      In Heller, he EXPLICITLY confirmed Miller, that the ONLY weapons protected are modern versions of what was used for militia service at ratification … which was a musket. The assault weapons ban was totally constitutional, which is why the NRA was powerless against it.

    2. Duncan v Becerra:
      “California’s law prohibiting acquisition and possession of magazines able to hold any more than 10 rounds places a severe restriction on the core right of self-defense of the home such that it amounts to a destruction of the right and is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny”

  12. 2021 Dave Kopel: “The Founders were well aware of atoms, after all they read their Democritus, so clearly the 2nd Amendment protects a private right of nuclear bomb ownership.”

    That escalated quickly…

    1. Not for Kopel!

    2. Ooh, the sneering Euro shows up with a sneering analogy to nuclear bomb ownership!

      1. WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH
        That was ridicule, and quite appropriate since Kopel is obviously and blatantly full of shit on Heller.

  13. Even your own sources don’t support your use of them. The immediately surrounding sentences from Charles Winthrop Sawyer, Firearms in American History 28-29:

    “A few repeating arms were made use of in a military way. There is, for instance, record that Frontenac in 1690 astonished the Iroquois with his three and five shot repeaters. These arms could not have been practical and serviceable military weapons because the flint-and-steel spark principle of ignition precluded the safe use of a single-barrel multi-shot firearm, and multi-barrel military guns would have been monstrosities. No further mention of them occurs.” Emphasis added.

    I mean, come on. Pretty pathetic.

    1. Totally irrelevant. Since 1939, and confirmed by Heller, 2A protects ONLY modern versions of weapons brought to militia service at ratification. Muskets.

      And Miller (1939) cites historical record that military style weapons were NOT included as protected weapons, also confirmed by Heller/

      1. It’s totally irrelevant that the very source Post cites as supporting evidence itself contradicts his own claims he purports to be supporting by citation to it?

        1. Kopel. Post. Person x such that x is a Conspirator and x wrote this post. Whatevs.

          1. It’s crackers. To slip a rozzer. The dropsy in snide.

        2. It’s irrelevant for the reasons I stated.
          Sorry, I can’t dumb it down any further,

  14. But how is the right to self-defense really impaired by the 10-round limit? How many self-defense cases in practice require more than that?

    1. Which of the following would be infringements on your First Amendment rights:

      A limit of no more than 100 books you can keep in your home (flammable hazard excuse)
      Bans on books that have attracted violent followings (Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, Little Red Book)
      You can visit no more than 7 churches in a week.
      You can publish no more than 24 blog posts per day.

      The vast majority of citizens would get through life without a hassle, but these bans would nevertheless be infringements and unconstitutional.

      1. Try again. Make sense this time.

  15. For David Kopel: On what basis is this case being re-argued before the Third Circuit? And is it before the Circuit en banc? Or the same panel that heard it the first time?

  16. There’s a distinct lack of reading in between the lines here from the comments. The point isn’t whether these guns were effective, or in common use, or even comparable to what we have today. The point was that prior to the drafting of the BoR and 2A, and even well after it while the Founders were still alive, technologies continue to improve. They knew damn well that weapons were becoming more lethal with rounds that hit harder and weapons that fire faster, more accurately, and most important of all, that are reasonably affordable and usable by the general public. In spite of all of this, they STILL chose to phrase the 2A and BoR as they did, stating that this right “shall not be infringed.” That’s the point of all this gun research. The Founders weren’t ignorant fools. They knew weapons were powerful. They knew they would become more powerful. And they knew people would misuse them as well. They didn’t give ten shits; freedom is always more important.

    1. Oh, I get it. The point of all this historical gun research is simply to say that all this historical gun research is irrelevant. Totally makes sense.

      1. It’s not pointless. Apparently people needed a historical reminder of the sorts of weapons technologies that existed throughout history and the level of understanding that the Founders had at the time of drafting 2A and BoR. I’d say this article is the best one I’ve seen and it has a lot of great detail. But people are really failing to see the forest because of all those darn trees in the way if they’re fighting over minute details and not the overarching trend of extremely lethal weapons with mass-killing capability AND rapid technological evolution being possible and still drafting 2A exactly as it was written.

    2. Part of the problem is that the deranged commenter who goes by TheLibertyTruthTeller has defecated all over the comment thread and rendered it difficult to navigate.

      1. That commenter is Michael Hihn, aka Dumbfuck Hihnsano. He’s a lonely, unloved old man who currently lives in Idaho and whose most notable life achievement was losing a state election in Washington.

        1. LOL Thanks man. I needed the good laugh. That Hihn guy cracks me up with his hysterics! I like how you lead him around by the nose again and again. He’s like a trained monkey at this point.

          1. Now he’s talking to himself.

      2. STOP BEING SUCH A WHINY PUSSY.
        YOU ARE PISSED … PISSED … THAT I PROVE EVERYING I SAY … BY CITING THE RULING, AND EVEN THE PAGE NUMBERS

        A LOT HARDER THAN REPEATING SLOGANS AND SOUNDBITES, AS PROGRAMMED BY A PUPPETMASTER.

        1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano repeats the same copypasta in multiple threads, accuses others of repeating soundbites.

    3. On what basis do YOU overturn 80 years of Constitutional precedent?
      Scalia blew you out of the water, in Heller (the parts in boldface)

      More Scalia (re Heller) . Now page 2
      https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

      2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues…

      Miller’s holding (1939) that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. PP 54-56

      Pages 54-56 are a VERY lengthy list of gun prohibitions at and around ratification.
      Scalia was am originalist; NOBODY here, who opposes any and all regulations is. They’re simply uninformed. Most REFUSE to accept the research of even Scalia

  17. George Washington’s army had machine guns? I did not know that.

    One would think that, if they were common weapons of the period, American armies would have been using them. It’s a little like saying that the existence of Babbage’s Analytical Engine meant that everyone in the 19th century had a smartphone.

    1. AND brought from home for militia duty.
      That would be a musket … unless your a psycho named Red Rocks, who INSISTS people brought flintlock handguns for militia service … instead of the musket they used to feed their family …. OR, colonists hunted game with FLINTLOCKS.

        1. ANOTHER goober who INSISTS 18th century people brought flintlock handguns for militia service … instead of the musket they used to feed their family …. OR, thacolonists hunted game with FLINTLOCKS.

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn’t know about flintlock rifles.

  18. The cool thing about not being a statist? It doesn’t matter what kind of mental disease is bothering TheLibertyTruthTeller. It doesn’t matter what that idiot’s opinion is. We’re running around with 100 round mags, auto-sear converted AR-15s & glocks, and laughing in the face of people like them and Scalia. WE DO NOT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THE OPINIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE (including Supreme Court justices and whiny little internet pussies who think they’re some sort of intelligent).

    1. The cool thing about not being a statist?

      (snort) Not all authoritarians are statists. Your contempt for individual liberty and consent of the governed is … well …, probably well beyond your limited intelligence to grasp

      Anyone else too fucking stupid to see that he or she DOESN’T GIVE A FUCK about … the Constitution? Just another bellowing blowhard of the Authoritarian Right. Probably one of the many that I publicly humiliated … by DARING to cite Scalia, with a source link and page numbers! … so FUCK THE RULE OF LAW, now that his ignorance has been publicly humiliated, the precious snowflake 🙂

      -Just a libertarian … defending libertarian values …. on a libertarian web site. (How DARE I?)

      Left – Right = Zero
      Both authoritarian thugs, and SO self-righteous,

      1. “Just a libertarian … defending libertarian values …. on a libertarian web site.”

        There’s nothing wrong with cogent argument and debate. However your tendency to resort to childish insults and condescension simply closes the minds of those to whom your message is intended. You can offer the wisdom of Solomon, and yet be unheard by those who will not tolerate being abused.

        If being a Libertarian means being a self-important, arrogant boor, then I’ll have nothing to do with the label.

        1. YOU PATHETIC SACK SLIMY SHIT.

          THIS IS WHAT I RESPONDED TO

          The cool thing about not being a statist? It doesn’t matter what kind of mental disease is bothering TheLibertyTruthTeller. It doesn’t matter what that idiot’s opinion is

          From a SOCK named LibertyTOOTHTeller.

          YOU RIGHT-WING THUGS EVEN TRY TO DICTATE HOW AN ASSA

          1. YOU RIGHT-WING PUNKS EVEN TRY TO DICTATE HOW YOU WILL GRACIOUSLY ALLOW AN ASSAULT VICTIM TO EMPLOY SELF-DEFENSE FROM UNPROVOKED AGGRESSION.

            If being a Libertarian means being a self-important, arrogant boor, then I’ll have nothing to do with the label.

            (sneer) You don’t deserve the label.
            THE PRIMARY VALUE OF LIBERTARIANS IS …. NON-AGGRESSION … which you just SHIT ON.

            STILL defending libertarian values … from authoritarian elites, both left and right … after 50+ years,.

            Left – Right = Zero..

            1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano still whining like a bitch that words are violence. That’s why his lawyer is his only friend these days.

              1. Verbal Aggression …A personality trait that predisposes persons to attack the self-concepts of other people instead of, or in addition to, their positions on topics of communication … Verbal aggressiveness is thought to be mainly a destructive form of communication

                Verbal hostility, or in other words, verbal harassment or abuse is basically a negative defining statement told to or about you or withholding a response and pretending the abuse is not happening.

                Cyberbullying The act of bullying someone through electronic means (as by posting mean or threatening messages about the person online)

                Stalker A person who harasses or persecutes someone with unwanted and obsessive attention.

                psychopath
                1. A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.
                ( Many Trumpsters. Loyalists to either major party)

                Literacy
                1. The ability to read and write.
                2. Knowing what words mean.
                3) Capable of using words properly.

Please to post comments