I told you I know nothing about guns or their mechanics. I could presume though that enough technical advances have been made in the last 200 years to render a massive difference between guns of that time period and guns today. For example I'm certain 200 yrs ago a gun instructor would not have been killed by a 9 yr old with an uzi
You are trying to claim there is some fundamental difference between using modern technology to exercise our right to free speech and using modern technology to exercise our right to bear arms. If you cannot explain that fundamental difference in some coherent way then you are not making a sound argument. I'm sure that a pedophile would not have recruited victims on the internet 200 years ago.
Not all gun owners are irresponsible and pretty much no one would ever allow a 9 year old to fire an uzi with a full mag. That pretty much takes a full blown retard and full blown retard parents. In fact most legal gun owners are more responsible than the average citizen based on crime statistics.
The fundamental difference is simply I can't kill anyone exercising my right to free speech over the Internet or by any other means, expressing my opinion on the internet, in a letter to a newspaper or in any other form of communication does not place anyone else's life in danger, however every time somebody exercises their right to bear arms there is a danger that somebody could be killed. The difference in communication is negligible(still written/spoken) the way in which it's delivered has changed greatly but not in a way that makes it dangerous. The advances in guns and the danger presented by those advances are huge,far more dangerous to the ordinary man on the street then any advances in communication means.
You could kill someone with the military grade guns they had 200 years ago. That's kind of the point, they're designed to kill. You can also kill people today with cars, knives, rocks, fists, etc.
of course you could but you couldn't kill 20 people without reloading. You couldn't commit mass acts the like of which we have seen over the last number of years. Yes again you are correct you can kill all those ways but I don't know when the last time I read about a mass deliberate killing in a school using a car or fists. Knives are also an issue but it's my understanding that there is no constitutional right to carry a knife
Do you get less dead when shot by a bullet that was not part of the initial load? One of the main purposes of the 2nd amendment was to protect us against a tyrannical government. We're obviously heavily outgunned by the government at this point and wouldn't stand much of a chance assuming the military were to remain sided with said tyrannical government. Making us more outgunned by further limiting the 2nd amendment is not ideal or in line with the original reasoning for it. The school shootings are terrible and just one child shot is too many. I really believe armed (concealed) teachers would help stop this problem.
LMAO! Islamic people walking the streets? How many Muslims do you actually know? It was only a few hundred years ago that Christians were publicly burning people alive for "being witches". They didn't have fully automatic weapons 200 years ago. The first automatic rifle was introduced in the early 1900s. I believe his point is that it is WAY easier to kill somebody today with a weapon than it was 200+ years ago. When the constitution was written, the gun tech was pretty much you have one shot to hit your target. If you miss, it takes substantial time to reload. An accident like this couldn't have happened back then. I'm pro gun as well, but he's right about that. Regulation is important. Young kids shouldn't be allowed anywhere near an automatic weapon or even standard ones.
