Comments by "Crazy Eyes" (@CrizzyEyes) on "MASSIVE GUN RIGHTS VICTORY" video.

Kentucky rifles were superior even to them, and it's what a lot of marksmen used during the revolution. They used those arms for hunting and naturally kept them afterward. On the contrary the British weren't supplying their companies with the best equipment. Many of them were penal conscripts.
87
Well, it affects you lot more than it would other nations across the Atlantic or Pacific oceans, or deep in South America. Who knows, maybe it will have an influence.
8
The "in defense of the state" idea is complete garbage, and I'll tell you why. Every one of the 13 colonies had their own bill of rights modeled on the English bill of rights. Every one of those 13 colonies' bill of rights had the 2nd amendment, worded 13 different ways. You can easily search them up and read them. If, after reading the contents of those 13 bills, you still think the founders intended that only state-designated military personnel should keep and bear arms when they wrote the federal bill of rights, then I'd say you're blatantly lying. We are talking about a nation where, in some regions like Pennsylvania, you were legally required to bring your gun to Sunday service because there might be an Indian raid.
2
@anonymous303-i1j Why not? Many nations around the world, under constant reasonable threat of invasion, require military service from their citizens at a given age. I think some of them even let you keep the service weapons. That is not so different from requiring arms for citizenship. I would only add the caveat that it should come with proper training. Too many idiots who don't know what they're doing pop into gun stores in this country, it's my only real problem with the 2nd Amendment. But it's less a problem with the amendment, and more a problem with the members of the public who find teaching gun safety at an early age to be distasteful. As if adults somehow learn things better than children (they don't).
2
There were also countless custom pieces made for rich enthusiasts that we will never know about. One of them was on Forgotten Weapons, a 1625 wheel-locked breechloader (!!!). If expert gunsmiths were capable of that at the time, no reason they would not be capable of multi-barreled rifles.
2
@КрасныйОрёл-л9х Depends on where I lived. If I were on the southern border of Texas? Having a cruise missile wouldn't be so bad, might result a few less beheadings of random civilians by cartel members. What about that Mormon family that got nearly wiped out in a cartel ambush after living on a Mexican homestead for generations? I'm sure a few "big sticks" as Teddy would say, would have made them think twice.
2
Pretty sure multi-barreled hand weapons went back to the 17th century at the latest, probably earlier than even that. They knew their shit. Thomas Jefferson invented a swivel chair and Ben Franklin doesn't really need an introduction on his scientific endeavours.
2
New York asked for it anyway. The law as it stood was completely arbitrary nonsense. If your law depends on the whimsy of any two-bit judge in your local courts, it's not a law at all.
1
@Devin_Stromgren That seems a little spurious given that rifles ended up becoming the standard. If the benefits to maintenance and reload speed were actually significant enough, then we would have used muskets through the Civil War. But we didn't. The only reason they weren't standard is they were more expensive to manufacture.
1
@Devin_Stromgren Point taken. Still, it's interesting to note that civilians always had arms that were on-par or better than military arms, even if they weren't practical for the military to produce themselves for an entire army. Even today, the ARs that civilians own are often more accurate than the M4s or M16s used by the military, by virtue of custom barrels, triggers, or optics
1
Classic copypasta.
1
@reikatheglaceon4426 It doesn't even have to be an ex. Just a complete asshole neighbor. Sad what people will do to each other.
1
@Psychoangel-d23 Yes. It's sad, but it's stuff like this that makes me think about Nietzsche's words more thoroughly. About how abolishing slavery was perhaps the wrong move, and that it just needed to be more humane instead -- because there's too many people who would be willingly on board with a "humane slavery" program. I wish that weren't the case, but a significant portion of the population proves me wrong on a regular basis.
1