"No one in Congress voiced concerns about laws restricting certain individuals from owning a gun, restrictions on types of weapons available for sale, or limits on where citizens could carry their weapons."
No one in Congress voiced concerns about pineapple as a pizza topping, either. This is because pizza didn't arrive in the United States until the early part of the 20th century, and nobody thought to put pineapple on it until after World War 2.
Similarly, Congress didn't voice concerns about the constitutional validity of modern gun control laws because at the time nobody was trying to pass those laws. The closest historical analogues were (a) racially discriminatory laws disarming "undesireables," and (b) laws restricting concealed carry on the theory that open carry was preferable for the law-abiding. Even the surety laws that you clowns love to cite to were rarely-enforced historical outliers that only existed in a couple of states.
Which is more likely: that Congress was, through its silence, giving tacit approval to the policy objectives of a gun control movement that wouldn't exist for at least another century and a half? Or that they considered the individual right to arms so uncontroversial that there wasn't anything for them to argue about?
Lol. Kostos shreds this with little effort. I hope Part 2 shows better effort, Professor.
Also your appeal to Ph.Ds and historians is probably pretty impressive as long as one has no actual experience in academia with those PhDs and historians.
Unfortunately, I have been in academia for close to two decades (also with a Ph.D) and that is not very persuasive.
"No one in Congress voiced concerns about laws restricting certain individuals from owning a gun, restrictions on types of weapons available for sale, or limits on where citizens could carry their weapons."
No one in Congress voiced concerns about pineapple as a pizza topping, either. This is because pizza didn't arrive in the United States until the early part of the 20th century, and nobody thought to put pineapple on it until after World War 2.
Similarly, Congress didn't voice concerns about the constitutional validity of modern gun control laws because at the time nobody was trying to pass those laws. The closest historical analogues were (a) racially discriminatory laws disarming "undesireables," and (b) laws restricting concealed carry on the theory that open carry was preferable for the law-abiding. Even the surety laws that you clowns love to cite to were rarely-enforced historical outliers that only existed in a couple of states.
Which is more likely: that Congress was, through its silence, giving tacit approval to the policy objectives of a gun control movement that wouldn't exist for at least another century and a half? Or that they considered the individual right to arms so uncontroversial that there wasn't anything for them to argue about?
Lol. Kostos shreds this with little effort. I hope Part 2 shows better effort, Professor.
Also your appeal to Ph.Ds and historians is probably pretty impressive as long as one has no actual experience in academia with those PhDs and historians.
Unfortunately, I have been in academia for close to two decades (also with a Ph.D) and that is not very persuasive.