The title of this thread does remind me of visiting the John Street Church in NYC. It was the first Methodist church built in the United States. It stands in contrast to the commercial district in which it sits - just a block or two from Wall Street. The feeling inside the church is an even more significant contrast than the architecture. I first visited it when I was in New York for some particularly contentious litigation. The sense of peace a visit to the sanctuary provided was unforgettable. :)

Regards,

D-Ray

Pete visit Williamsburg sometime, the guns were kept locked up in the armory. Ordinary folks probably had hunting rifles but the big stuff was under lock and key.

That's right.

Dave

Been there - 3 times ;) Love how they used them for decor.

I don't know anyone with cannons. Everyone then had rifles, even foreigners like Washington. And horror of horrors, they didn't need a license to buy or keep them.

Pete

Actually, nobody had rifles (yet). They had muskets. Rifles extended the range of muskets several hundred percent. I don't think the Founding Fathers saw that one coming. ;)

Ah so. Long things that looked like guns that propelled small objects rapidly :)

The Constitution has this amazing foresighted bit in there - the amendment process ;)

Btw, I probably wouldn't have kept going back although it was very good - my step daughter loved it there.

Pete

Speaking of Williamsburg, my (now deceased) uncle was a graphics artist employed by Colonial Williamsburg for his entire career. One of his specialties were the period maps you saw in a bunch of the buildings there. His son-in-law (my cousin's husband, also recently deceased) managed all the period musicians who played in the taverns, etc. He played a bunch of period stringed instruments and, in addition to playing in the Colonial Williamsburg venues, travelled widely to cultural and diplomatic meetings where they wanted such entertainment.

Cool place.

We spent a Christmas there, stayed right in the Inn, quite an experience.

I've always wondered whether anti-2nd-amendment types would be consistent in interpretation if elements of the 1st amendment had been phrased with a preceeding justification like...

"A well-informed citizenry being neccessary to make reasoned choices at the ballot box, the right of the people to read books of choice shall not be infringed"

Obviously, you don't vote --- You don't need to be carrying that high-caliber Kindle. Put down that e-reader son, and slowly step away...

The problem with that analogy is that Kindles are not lethal weapons.

It's interesting that you use the terms "anti 2nd Amendment." It might be more accurate to describe such folks a narrow interpreters of the 2nd Amendment.

Are you suggesting that the right to bear arms is more important to a democracy than a broadly interpreted protection of free speech?

Regards,

D-Ray