Two hundred years of experiencing this constitutional mistake should be enough to end this death-causing, not freedom-protecting, clause. The self-protection aspect of this thing is incredibly weak — just ask Trayvon Williams in Florida.See what I mean by dolt? Who's Trayvon Williams? Is he talking about Trayvon Martin? The kid shot Sanford was named Trayvon Martin. Seems the Trib could have done some fact-checking too.
Here's another line for the ill informed (or intentionally deceptive) doc:
Even a Civil War Gatling gun didn’t shoot bullets much quicker than a modern assault rifle — and it was much harder to carry and point a Gatling gun or World War II 50-caliber machine gun.Does he realize the term 'assault rifles' is traditionally used to describe fully automatic weapons (not generally available to the U.S. civilian market)? American consumers are generally capped at owning semi-automatics, where each round fired needs a unique trigger pull.
Civil War Gatling Guns have been estimated to have had rates of fire between 200 and 400 rounds per minute. That compares with the maximum 45 rounds per minute for a semi-automatic AR-15, but that's only for a short period. For a sustained rate of fire, AR-15s need to stick closer to 12 to 15 rounds a minute if you want to avoid malfunctions or damage to the weapon.
Sorry Doc, but your facts are fudged. And your logic flawed.
Even if you could manage to take away all the guns, and someone intent on mass murder didn't have one available, a sick and twisted soul could just as easily use a carton of gasoline to rack up a death toll far greater than anything a single gunman could pull off. And it's been done before.
For safe to carry, reliable, at your fingertips self-protection against one attacker or ten, nothing beats a gun.
And I haven't even gotten into why the founding fathers deemed the Second Amendment worthy of inclusion. That has more to do with the nature of men and government. And I dare say neither has changed much in the past two hundred and some years.