NRA is protecting gun manufacturers, not the Second Amendmen

They had muskets too, but muskets in the hands of well trained troops are much more effective than a collection of muskets, rifles, & shotguns of different calibres and little training or experience.

FredHayek wrote: They had muskets too, but muskets in the hands of well trained troops are much more effective than a collection of muskets, rifles, & shotguns of different calibres and little training or experience.

Oh, I thought many colonists used muskets regularly to hunt for food. My mistake.

Training to work together as a unit is a lot different than knowing how to shoot a tasty squirrel out of a tree. Knowing how to reload under fire and under pressure is a lot different than taking your time to load and not being shot at while doing so.

I would think the biggest priority for them is Membership. If many gun makers get shut down, this will make it so no matter how many people want guns, they will get harder to get and gun ownership will get bred out of society and their membership will fall. Especially if folks have their guns rounded up or are not allowed to pass them to heirs. Plus the govt is not allowed to take things without giving the fair value of such a things. One could argue there is no market but that is true for a house that is in the way of a highway too, one could perhaps better argue that when they take someones X gun in 70 years when they die that it is worth millions, they have not been made in 70 years....So if we are going to take guns upon death many years from now, this could have an economy crippling effect depending on how many dozens of guns worth millions we have to confiscate. My understanding is that there are more guns than people in the US.

Since I believe the second amendment is not going to change, just have different levels of being ignored, I think I agree that the best defense of their membership is to keep as many gun mfgrs in business as possible and keep people interested and valuing guns.

I think the British had more cannons.

I am curious what tool the citizens are supposed to use if the govt were to stop letting the public influence the way govt works. I thought that is what the second amendment was for. That is why I want people to be able to have any gun that is currently acceptable to be used on the public. Others have mentioned rocket launchers and tanks, from my understanding we do not police our own citizens with these tools. I figure if a domestic police force can use it, I should have the right to own it in order to make sure that they don't abuse the weapons or the power they have. My understanding is that the constitution was designed to put the people above the govt and just about every provision was put there to keep the govt from getting out of control, not the people.

“Justice Scalia clearly laid out in Heller what Second Amendements were and what they were not. The most Conservative justice on the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, made it very clear: assault weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment.”

In someone's fantasy that may be true, but not anywhere in any decision Scalia has authored. He did say that the right wasn't an unlimited one, just as none of the others are, but I can't find a single place in any of the recent decisions where Scalia said that assault weapons were not protected by the 2nd Amendment. He did opine that to be as effective today as in times past a militia might well need highly sophisticated arms that were highly unusual in society, which certainly isn't a description of the technology used in semi-automatic firearms that have been around for 100 years now, but I didn't see anything that he wrote that conclusively stated that so called "assault weapons" are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Here's a solution. I could see Tejas following suit.

http://k2radio.com/wyoming-lawmakers-pr ... gislation/
Wyoming Lawmakers Propose ‘Gun Protection’ Legislation
Several Wyoming lawmakers are proposing legislation designed to protect gun-owners from any potential federal firearm ban. The “Firearms Protection Act” bill, introduced this week, would make any federal law banning semi-automatic firearms or limiting the size of gun magazines unenforceable within the state’s boundaries.

FredHayek wrote: Training to work together as a unit is a lot different than knowing how to shoot a tasty squirrel out of a tree. Knowing how to reload under fire and under pressure is a lot different than taking your time to load and not being shot at while doing so.

So how is shooting at group of Redcoats marching in formation while hiding behind a tree in the woods any different that shooting a deer walking down a path?

And where did you get the idea shotguns were used in the American Revolution?

http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~ieahcweb/rev ... index.html

The primary infantry firearm of both sides was the "Brown Bess" smoothbore flintlock musket. This .75-caliber weapon was mass-produced for the British military. It was accurate to a range of 50 to 100 yards, and trained troops could fire two to four shots per minute. In addition, some light troops carried rifles, which were more accurate and had a longer range but took longer to reload. American riflemen were renowned for their accuracy. Officers and some soldiers also carried flintlock pistols, but these weapons were inaccurate beyond a very short range.

http://www.ehow.com/info_8127767_weapon ... y-war.html

Ra___ wrote: [
So how is shooting at group of Redcoats marching in formation while hiding behind a tree in the woods any different that shooting a deer walking down a path?

I would agree if someone marks this post as not furthering the thread. That's OK. I just wanted to quote this because I find it a completely stunning comment.

Ra___ wrote:

You really need to go get your facts straight. Your so far out in left field it is stupid. Your not even close. You need to subtract about 60% of that. Quite telling your little lies.