How should Vermont's right to bear arms be interpreted?

He thinks the state or federal government could ban any firearm that holds more than one round at a time and that would be constitutional. In other words, he doesn't think honest Americans have any right whatsoever to own firearms. It's a position that is absurd to the extreme

 

So a person that had no idea how rights work.

 

The author of that article, Nathan Kozuskanich, is a history professor with a PhD from Ohio State University.
https://www.nipissingu.ca/users/nathan-kozuskanich

In the Reynolds case, it was argued by the defense that brandishing a pistol against a threatening mob was justified under British common law and natural rights philosophy. However, this was not a case of the people exercising their right to bear arms in defense of themselves as protected by Pennsylvania's state constitution. First of all, Reynolds was only one individual and therefore not "the people". Secondly, "bear arms" had a military meaning in the 18th Century.

 

in the 18th century, those who were creating the new government had just thrown off British imperialism with the force of arms and gun banners pretend that because most references to bearing arms go back to that revolution, it means that the founders didn't want people to own firearms for reasons other than military purposes. Which is blatantly false.

what is funny is watching those who only want criminals and the state being armed, pretending that the founders were opposed to people just like them being armed.

 

I used to think it was due to ignorance combined with a political agenda. Now I am convinced it is outright dishonesty driven by a political agenda

 

I really don't think the agenda is less rights for everyone as such an agenda would be suicidal.

I think it's really about the idea that people who have guns tend to be a little more on the conservative side. It's more about being contrarian.

 

many anti gunners don't own guns. they don't want others to own them either

 

Yeah they're a bit foolish

 

At the top it certainly is. People who have a means to fight cant be completely controlled, and control freaks find that unacceptable.

 

The Reynolds case brings this quote to mind:

"And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."

This is arguably the most idiotic claim in Heller. Even if bear arms had had a non-military meaning the Second Amendment would have done little to protect the use of guns in self defense since it wasn't applied at the state level. It makes more sense that the Founders were interested in assuring the anti-Federalists that the state militias would be armed. That was something that the federal government could do something about.

 

It wasnt applied at the state level because the founders wanted to prevent states from restricting their citizens from bearing arms.

 

Another false appeal to authority.
And... I know this guy. "Skewed" isn't a strong enough term

 

https://www.shootingillustrated.com...T9GjiOnjplFtUAjia37ciCptQExjDeCkPE10h0uuJlzoG

over SEVEN HUNDRED MILLION Magazines in the USA that hold more than ten rounds

in common use for lawful purposes!