> This short article tries to show that there always was a distinction between > militia arms and the firearms owned by the population. > > Then it gets into the differences between the popular firearms in 1791 vs the > ones in use today - and seems to argue that the 2A only applies to the > firearms of 1791, not to the handgun that Dirty Harry likes. > > I end up feeling that the authors are spinning this - and would much preferred > if they had contrasted this with the 1A and the printing press of 1791 vs the > electric motor driven ones of today and the Internet. > > Am I being too harsh?
Likely not, though the 1A angle is unnecessary. "Popular" and "used" and "common" are different concepts. Cannons in the colonial era were used and common, though they were primarily owned by the wealthy who were often also militia leaders (take a drive along the James River and you'll see some of those cannons still sitting on the front landings of plantation homes). Hence, I don't see that a distinction between militia arms and the firearms owned by the population is relevant. Nearly any arm has potential militia use (though relative efficacy can be debated). Aside from WMDs, the author's point is moot. Guy Smith Author Gun Facts and Shooting The Bull _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
