Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>"the Second Amendment predates machine guns"

That statement is false. Repeating firearms like the Puckle gun predate the bill of rights by ~75 years.

More importantly, the Founders were hardly unfamiliar with privately owned military firepower. The Constitution expressly authorized Congress to grant letters of marque, and the government commissioned privateers to attack enemy shipping using their cannon-armed privately-owned warships.

If you want to change an amendment do it the correct way, repeal it.



> The Constitution expressly authorized Congress to grant letters of marque… the government commissioned privateers...

So Congress had a certain level of... control? Over guns?


I know you're an idealogical zealot but, for anyone else reading.

I do find it interesting that the only laws I can find limiting the arming of private vessels were with respect to arming them and then sending them off to fight in foreign wars.[1]

[1] Neutrality Act of 1794, §§3–4, 1 Stat. 381, 383


Vessels is a bit of an odd thing to focus on, frankly. I'm largely not allowed to own a fully armed tank, fighter jet, or howitzer.

(With a few strictly controlled exceptions; https://www.skiutah.com/blog/authors/lexi/last-gunners-the-c...)


Cannon-armed Vessels were the pinnacle of military technology at the time the Bill of Rights was authored.


And?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: