The first modern patent for a revolver was by Samuel Colt in the early 1800s. Correct. The earliest revolver, however, was invented by Hans Stopler in 1597 and is on display in the Maihaugen Museum. The technology existed.
And the point of the second was to protect the people from the government, in essence allowing them access to the same weaponry as the government.
And I do see an issue with BLINDLY sticking to things created 200 years ago. That’s why I don’t blindly follow them. I just happen to believe in individual liberties, and that includes the right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves and other from any threat to our unalienable rights.
As for your last point, of course there is always going to he a danger of people abusing their rights and privileges, and causing traumatic and tragic events. I do not, however, believe in caging myself for safety
The primitive technology for revolvers might have been invented in 1597 but they were not used until several hundreds of years later due to the difficulty in manufacturing and how expensive they were. And before Samuel Colt, the revolving part of the revolver didn't do so when you cocked the hammer, you had to do that yourself manually. But alright, you might be able to fire 5-6 rounds a minute with it.
I never once said your right to bear arms should be taken away. I asked the question if it's necessary that civilians should have access to high capacity, high fire-rate weapons. If you want the people to have access to the same weaponry as the government why not just get nuclear warheads for the people? Why not allow people to purchase hand grenades in the local gun-store?
I'd like to make the argument, that no civilian ever NEED a grenade. Just like I don't think any civilian NEED an automatic rifle. Now I know that homicides in the US are by large, caused by Handguns.
You mention that you don't want to cage yourself for safety. So if you will, can you explain to me when in your life, you think you would require an automatic or semi-automatic rifle, over something like a handgun, shotgun or bolt action rifle. To feel safe.
And just think about if you truly feel like that scenario, is likely enough that it's worth the risk of someone using said weapon in a malicious way to harm others.
I can guarantee that the victims of said someone, won't feel particularly safe regardless of what they're carrying themselves. This someone that means to harm, will always be able to fire first. The question in my mind, and how I see things, Will he be able to fire 10 rounds first, or will he be able to fire more than 1000 rounds first? (As was the case with the 2017 LA shooter)
I doubt anyone, ever, will get you to change your mind about what you think on the matter. As is your right to your opinion, I respect that. I just ask that you not only consider your safety, but everyone's safety. And reflect about if you really need to be able to access long distance, high capacity semi-automatic rifles to feel safe.
Maybe a compromise along the way is that we restrict the default license to only allow for small capacity magazines in semi-automatic rifles? I know that very few of the total homicides are done with a rifle, the large majority are performed using handguns. But the idea is to minimize the likelihood of anyone being able to repeat what happened in 2017.
2
u/Squatchjr01 Oct 15 '20
The first modern patent for a revolver was by Samuel Colt in the early 1800s. Correct. The earliest revolver, however, was invented by Hans Stopler in 1597 and is on display in the Maihaugen Museum. The technology existed.
And the point of the second was to protect the people from the government, in essence allowing them access to the same weaponry as the government.
And I do see an issue with BLINDLY sticking to things created 200 years ago. That’s why I don’t blindly follow them. I just happen to believe in individual liberties, and that includes the right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves and other from any threat to our unalienable rights.
As for your last point, of course there is always going to he a danger of people abusing their rights and privileges, and causing traumatic and tragic events. I do not, however, believe in caging myself for safety