Yes?

But that was years ago

also, shifting gears entirely

And we pretty much ended slavery

We didn't even invent it

I hate that argument "The forefathers couldn't predict super muskets that could fire multiple musketballs really fast"

Also there's still slavery going on rn

n e crimson tide yet

Soon <:GWfroggyPepoSmug:398570232647647242>

<:pepe_smug:378719408341909506>

because they knew, they wanted everyone to be armed with whatever in order to rival any government and keep it in check, they would have OK'd plasma shotguns

and handheld rail rifles

What

nice

What are you talking about now

n e vc

Huh

Surely it covers all firearms

also, you don't think they would come after your musket eventually? they definitely would

And possibly even all weapons

@Deleted User that's the point

Oh, well

@Angus Actually, they could have.

There were prototypes in the works.

Also, the Americans had superior firepower due to rifling on their guns vs the British muskets which did not

Then it doesn't need revision, no?

they meant they wanted all future types of personal weapon to be available to the people

if you just look at the spirit of the words

So really, the revolutionary war was won with BETTER than military grade weapons

what is one allowed to have if the gvovernment has super guns, mr. jeffersson???

So what's the problem then?

If all weapons are covered by the amendment

their argument is that they aren't

or shouldnt be

You mean

"is just for hunting"

There are some weapons that civilians should never be able to posses?

Well yeah obviously

nukes

Uhh