You have to keep at it Justise as i like the debate and like seeing solutions and solutions from the past cant be judged in current time the more i see it .
I cant be blamed for something i never did if i was never there .The same we cant judge the second amendment if we were never there !
They had a civil war with automatic weapons they never changed it and were shooting each other .
Even to the extent this has been challenged in court that the amendment carried no holding on future weapons .The right to bare arms won ?
I just dont think people are grasping when trying point out any weapons of current day .And understand they would have used them if they had them and tried every way to have multiple shot weapons they just did not have the technology to do so.
How you think a single shot weapons started being used by different ammunition to get multiple shots from the one weapon ?
Engineer it out with the ammunition could be one way make that start .The opposite of trying get the multiple shot from one weapon ban the ammunition of the current ones .
This is what they have tried do with the nuclear weapons to some extent ?We have not banned them but the stockpiles of ot be used in the future .
Sure they can go around this but if you cant make the munition you cant fire it ! You still have the right to have your rifle . Any guns handed back in the could reward with one musket even as an incentive .
Engraved with the right to bare arms on it enshining that history for change .The same as Heston was handed a musket if the time is there for it to be handed back enshine that ability still with those who have born arms in the name of freedom .
I vote for trump myself i think he has the maverick ability to look differently at problems for solutions and wants that come forward past the left right divide .
In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against state and local governments.[14] In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".[15]
