VIDEO: An explicit look at how our guns have changed. Shouldn't our gun laws?


man shooting  rifle

A friend of the star of this video sent it along for me to share. It's paints an clear, visually explicit, easy-to-understand picture of how we cannot compare the Second Amendment right to bear arms in musket eras to that same right applied to high-capacity military assault-style weapons:


A message from States United To Prevent Gun Violence calls for an update to our antiquated gun laws. To get involved, sign our petition at

Also, visit our website at

The video and this photo illustrate how long it used to take to reload:

guns have changed

Now gun manufacturers and the NRA, along with paranoid gun zealots, are telling us that having the ability to mow down twenty innocent children with an AR-15 loaded with a high-capacity gun magazine capable of shooting off 100 rounds and massacring entire groups of living, breathing human beings in under five minutes is perfectly acceptable... because they assert that the Second Amendment says so.

It doesn't. And no legislation that is being proposed suggests any infringement of any American's rights.

What does it take?

  • Steel Cowboy

    I am a serious Firearm collector who owns an 1863 Springfield Musket and an AR15, and I can tell you the 2nd Amendment does not address the AR15. This weapon was designed to destroy tissue. It will go through 1/4" Steel and also a Cement Block. It has no business out on the street.

  • Alison Verbeck

    The second amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
    State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
    infringed." The very first part says WELL REGULATED. It seems to me that we are not honoring the constitution's intent if we do not regulate. Gun regulations seem totally in keeping with the intent.

  • William Heffner

    I have no opposition to gun legislation, but that is spurious thinking. The second amendment doesn't say that we have a right to kill a certain number of people, or fire bullets at a specified rate, nor does it define "arms." It doesn't say that we have the right to bear the weapons that were in use at that time. It says that we have a right to bear arms. Further, it does not prohibit the removal of that right, it says that the right shall bot be infringed. Look up the word infringed in the dictionary: "act so as to limit or undermine something." We either have a constitution, or we do not.