Read on Twitter
The anti-gun left is fond of pointing out that when the Second Amendment (hereafter referred to as #2A) was written muskets were the personal weapon of choice. While it is a cute argument, as in leftists seem to think it ends the argument, let's address what really happened.
The #2A does not say anything about "personal weapons", or about any particular kind of weapon. The second half of that has been debated hotly over the last few years, even though District of Columbia vs. Heller all but drove that nail all the way into the coffin.
In fact, Heller, Miller before it, and a string of others even before that have unanimously affirmed that #2A applies to an individual right to "weapons of war". The exceptions that have been held were to weapons that were not believed to be weapons in common use or by military.
So, let's back up. The militia, and by militia, it meant the "unorganized militia", which is DEFINED in US Code, see the attached graphic, as everyone except the National Guard and Army, for all intents and purposes.
The militia was expected to bring their weapons suitable for military service with them when called up. This of course pre-supposes that the militia actually possessed weapons suitable for military service, otherwise, half of #2A is simply meaningless.
I'm going to use some fake marketing jargon coined by the left now...
The militia was required to bring "military-grade" "weapons of war" with them when called up.
There is one, and ONLY one, way this was possible, they were required to own them.
The militia was required to bring "military-grade" "weapons of war" with them when called up.
There is one, and ONLY one, way this was possible, they were required to own them.
So back to "personal weapons". History has established that many of the pre-war militia not only arrived with personal weapons such as the Bronw Bess pictured above, or with more modern rifles, as opposed to muskets, but some brought cannon.
Anyone want to argue that cannons are personal weapons? I'm waiting for some leftist idiot to rise to the bait with this one,...
No?
No?
No, cannon are not muskets, nor are they personal weapons, and they meet every definition of weapons of war that I have ever heard. You cannot make an argument for either hunting or self-defense...and yet...
AT THAT TIME, people were expected to possess them and bring them when called up. In fact, people did possess them, as well as the ammunition and powder required for their use.
The "musket" argument is therefore void as is the "weapons of war" argument, and a plain reading of Heller actually agrees with that, weapons of war are specifically included in the #2A as weapons that citizens are permitted and required to possess.
