Comment: Can we please lay to rest the "musket" argument?

(See in situ)

Can we please lay to rest the "musket" argument?

This is guaranteed to come up in any "gun control" discussion. It's a ridiculous fallacy used as a cheap attempt to make a point, along with the argument you don't need an AK-47 to go duck hunting.

Are we seriously supposed to believe it was beyond the founders mental capacity to envision any further advances in defense weaponry, and that it had reached its apex?

There is no way in hell a musket will offer much protection in this era just as sticks and stones would during the time of our nations founders. And anyone who believes an AR-15 will put up much of a defense 200 years from now is simply not using their head.

Trust me, your grandchildren's grandchildren will back me up on this.

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.