Flintlock

Wow, do Leftists still think they can fool anyone w/ this fallacy of origins argument? It's almost like the 2nd Amendment says "Right to bear *arms*", not "right to bear muskets" & many of the Founding Fathers were themselves inventors & had the foresight to know that technology would change, but axiomatic principles would not.

For the record, in that time-period, people had *repeating rifles w/ 20/21 round vertical hoppers* ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle ) & yes, privately-owned *warships armed w/ cannons*.

But sure, if we're going w/ your "if it wasn't *exactly* as the conditions of early America were at the time of the signing of the Constitution, it doesn't apply", I guess all the southern blacks can get back in the cotton fields, & gay marriage is off the books.

I'm not going to try and put words into the mouths of "Leftists" as that would be making a straw man argument, but my opinion here was that the average American does not need unlimited firepower. Apparently, you feel that you do.

You just literally made a strawman argument while pretending not to make one. It's not any of your or anyone else's business *how* much firepower an American has, as long as they're not violating anyone's rights with it.

What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?

So, you are confirming my 'strawman' view that your opinion is that some citizen may need unlimited firepower?

What part of "what law-abiding citizens do w/ their private property is not any of yours or anyone else's business" do you have trouble understanding? Sounds like maybe people like you are the reason why we need that extra firepower.

Sounds like maybe a threat.

Respect the constitution, keep your hands to yourself & away from others' private property, & it won't have to be. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯