or the requirement to have a license to own a common arm.
I didn't know bearing (carrying) arms wasn't bearing if they were covered by a garment. I also didn't know that having to get licensed and fingerprinted with references and having proper cause wasn't an infringement.
And that proves what exactly? That other states are infringing?
You don't think that even having to get licensed for a right is an infringement?
Here is what you are not getting. You shouldn't have to challenge anything. The 2A is clear. You have been brainwashed into thinking otherwise and think it's perfectly acceptable to infringe until it gets challenged or accept it as if it's what the founders intended if a corrupt, biased decision is rendered.
At the time before the Constitution was written it was commonplace to do a lot of things that are now protected by the Constitution. Housing soldiers in private property, not having the freedom to say what you want, ect.
Their flint locked pistols were the size of the Mossberg Shockwave and weren't safe to carry loaded. That's like saying it wasn't common place to have a semi-automatic rifles back then so we shouldn't have them now to open carry.
Small flintlock pistols existed. But to the best of my knowledge concealing was considered dishonorable or something only spy's or criminals did back then.
Really! Tell that to Alexander Hamilton.
Ok. There were smaller ones available although not very effective through clothing so Holdover's statement about then not being worth a damned still stands. The males carried larger ones for that reason.
