Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control Reform Activism

DetlefK

(16,541 posts)

3. Back then, "arms" simply meant something different.

Reply to flamin lib (Original post)

Mon Jun 8, 2015, 10:48 AM

Jun 2015

It meant being able to shoot 1 bullet per minute. That's not that big a difference to a society where martial conflicts are solved with swords and arrows.

Now compare a society with 1 bullet per minute to a society with 15 bullets in 10 seconds, compare it with hunting-rifles with telescopes. That's a HUGE difference. The level of lethality is wholly different.
It's no longer "1 person ambushs and kills 1 person", but now it's "1 person ambushs and kills 10 persons".

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

NRA version of 2nd Amendment lacks common sense [View all] flamin lib Jun 2015 OP

Membership HassleCat Jun 2015 #1

It makes sense Turbineguy Jun 2015 #2

Back then, "arms" simply meant something different. DetlefK Jun 2015 #3

How about "The right of the people to own gun-powder shall not be infringed." DetlefK Jun 2015 #4

Correct, it says nothing about firearms. safeinOhio Jun 2015 #5