Founders never intended us to have semi-automatic rifles? (Obama, free speech, carry)

[monkeywrenching]

Originally Posted by bbronston

I think you misunderstand what I wrote, or I may not have been as clear as I could have been. I don't need to read it again and I am fully aware of the purpose and meaning of the 2nd. I've even read the Federalist Papers to get a better understanding of the times and context of the wording, not taking someone's word for it. Bottom line is you aren't saying anything that I disagree with and my point was that the existence of this rifle at that point in time completely takes the wind out of the sails of those who use the argument that the 2nd A only gives us the right to a single shot muzzle loader.

In fact, I still don't understand how any gun laws regarding the "keep and bear" right have ever been held up as constitutional considering that every one of them infringes to some degree. I'm not sure I agree that there shouldn't be laws, I just don't see how laws that infringe on keeping and bearing have been upheld constitutionally. For example, requiring a CCW license or restricting open carry, in my view, an obvious infringement. However, while banning a particular type of gun, magazine, or ammo is something I regard as needless and pointless meddling, I don't think it crosses the infringement line. I know that will inflame some people but I am not advocating something, I am only reading the words and considering the logic that, unfortunately, limiting the selection of arms available is not the same as infringing on the right to keep an arm or carry it. Even taking into consideration the purpose and context of the 2nd (and I do), the 2nd simply doesn't give the people the right to the same bearable armament as the government, as some people say. Maybe it should, but it doesn't, and that was probably an oversight, not an intention of the founders, because they didn't foresee a standing army.

I really didn't want this thread to go this way though....

actually it does cross the infringement line lots. the feds and states can regulate the militia but have no authority at all to make any law at all concerning the peoples right to keep and bear arms.

also, look up the actual meaning of what the founders meant by well regulated.

they meant well regulated to mean being able to hit a target at a set distance. take a firearm to a real gunsmith and ask them to regulate your firearm, and they should ask you for what powder charge, bullet weight and what distance.

[bbronston]

I understand what you are saying but I don't think you are following me. The 2nd says that the federal government may not infringe on the right to keep and bear an arm. It does not say that Congress doesn't have the right to limit certain weapons. So, as long as they don't limit your right to keep and bear an arm, they have not infringed on your right. At least, that is the logic that I think the SCOTUS would have to follow. Maybe not, I'm not a constitutional scholar but that's what makes sense to me. I'm not saying I agree with this at all, however.

BTW, I'm not even considering the militia part. I don't think that clause has any bearing on the discussion one bit. The amendment does not say that the right is dependent on there being a militia, despite what anti-gun people want to believe.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Well, I didn't want to get dragged in to this thread but your post was my tipping point, so here goes;

Originally Posted by bbronston

. However, while banning a particular type of gun, magazine, or ammo is something I regard as needless and pointless meddling, I don't think it crosses the infringement line. I know that will inflame some people but I am not advocating something, I am only reading the words and considering the logic that, unfortunately, limiting the selection of arms available is not the same as infringing on the right to keep an arm or carry it. Even taking into consideration the purpose and context of the 2nd (and I do), the 2nd simply doesn't give the people the right to the same bearable armament as the government, as some people say.

If you read the amendment from a strictly textual standpoint, then you are right. The 2A protects the right to arms. Flintlocks are arms, and so as long as you have the right to own a flintlock, your rights aren't being infringed. However, anyone who would make this argument is being intellectualy dishonest, and knowingly so. When interpreting the constitution, judges need to be able to read between the lines and consider not only the text, but the intent behind the text. That's why it's so important that we have Senators and a president who are going to appoint judges who will interpret the Constitution in an honest way. But, we know the strictly textual standpoint interpretation is wrong because... { click the "show" button }

Spoiler

What was the intention of the 2A anyway? Primarily, defense. Defense of life, liberty, and country.

So if defense was the reason for the 2A, who exactly did the founders think we might need to defend ourselves from? Any Governments standin.g army, foreign or even domestic. Yes, you read that right. They thought that we may one day need to defend ourselves from an army, even if that army was our own. { more on this in a minute. }

So, if the founders included an amendment to protect our right to the tools we would need to defend ourselves from an army, does it make sense that they would have been ok with limiting We The People to firearms that are inferior to the firearms of an army? I think not. The 2A protects the right of the people to posses the same type of arms possesed by those from which they may need to defend themselves against

Maybe it should, but it doesn't,

It does when we consider the intent of the 2A, and not just the text.

and that was probably an oversight, not an intention of the founders,

I don't think so. The founders knew the world would change. There is nothing that exists now that didn't already exist in the time of the Contitution. Think about it. I mean, one could argue that political speech on TV is not protected, because TV didn't exist back then, right? Wrong. It's still speech, and speech is protected. That's why it's bunk to say that newer "arms" are not protected. They are ARMS and arms are protected. So, everything is the same as it was back then, it's just taken on different forms. If anything, the fact that they knew the world would change is probably the reason why they DIDN'T get specific.

because they didn't foresee a standing army.

Hate to tell ya, but you're wrong there to. They foresaw a standing army alright. That's why they thought the need for a state run militia was so important.

Federalist 29:

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it.

This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

In other words, the founders knew it may one day be necessary for the federal government to erect a standing army, and the state miltias would be the best defense against a standing army gaining too much power. You can also throw this up at anti-guners who would argue that the founders never intended the 2A to be a safegaurd against a tyrannical government.

Another interesting point. When the anti-guners claim that the founders intended for the 2A to only apply to militias, show them this, also from Federalist 29:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped

Proof positive that not only did the founders consider all people to be the militia, but also that the people at large ought to be well armed and equipped. Basically what they are saying here is that training the entire miltia, which is every citizen, is futile and counter-productive, and probaly impossible. Only a select few, or as the founders put it, as "select corps" can be trained in an official capacity, and the best we can do for everybody else is to have them armed.

Some interesting stuff and the Federalist Papers lend great insight in to what exactly the founders intended when the wrote the Constitution.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by bbronston

I understand what you are saying but I don't think you are following me. The 2nd says that the federal government may not infringe on the right to keep and bear an arm. It does not say that Congress doesn't have the right to limit certain weapons. So, as long as they don't limit your right to keep and bear an arm, they have not infringed on your right. At least, that is the logic that I think the SCOTUS would have to follow. Maybe not, I'm not a constitutional scholar but that's what makes sense to me. I'm not saying I agree with this at all, however.

If you try to interpret the 2A from a strictly textual standpoint, yes. The governent could ban all weapons except flintlocks or single shot .22 rifles, because those are arms. However, to interpret it that way, would be completely dishonest. As far as how the SCOTUS would have to interpret it? They already have. Look up Heller. A lot of people think that is a good ruling, and it is to a certain extent, but in another extent, it is a bad ruling, because the SCOTUS basically took it upon themselves to change the intention of the 2A from protection against a tyrannical gov't to protection from home invaders, target shooting, and hunting, and that is clearly not what the founders had in mind when they drafted the 2A. If they would have ruled based on what the 2A was actually intended for, I'd be able to go out and purchase a full auto M16 tomorrow, or any other arm that the government issues to soldiers, but I can't. Not even the conservative leaning judges were willing to open those floodgates. Further complicating the problem, is what "arms" they ruled to be protected. They employed a circular logic here by saying that the type of arms protected are the kind in common use amongst Americans today, and that doesn't include full auto weaponry or any other "arm" that the military may use. that was a cop-out. If they would have ruled from an originalist standpoint, in keeping with the intent of the 2A, they SHOULD have ruled that the type of weapons protected are those that are important to maintaining an efficient and well regulated militia, i.e. the type of arms a soldier might use.

BTW, I'm not even considering the militia part. I don't think that clause has any bearing on the discussion one bit. The amendment does not say that the right is dependent on there being a militia, despite what anti-gun people want to believe.

You got that right. And, even if it were only to protect that right of the militia to keep and bear arms, as I've already demonstrated in the post above this one, the founders considered us all to be a part of the militia.

[monkeywrenching]

Originally Posted by bbronston

I understand what you are saying but I don't think you are following me. The 2nd says that the federal government may not infringe on the right to keep and bear an arm. It does not say that Congress doesn't have the right to limit certain weapons. So, as long as they don't limit your right to keep and bear an arm, they have not infringed on your right. At least, that is the logic that I think the SCOTUS would have to follow. Maybe not, I'm not a constitutional scholar but that's what makes sense to me. I'm not saying I agree with this at all, however.

BTW, I'm not even considering the militia part. I don't think that clause has any bearing on the discussion one bit. The amendment does not say that the right is dependent on there being a militia, despite what anti-gun people want to believe.

it does not say "arm". the 2nd Amendment says "arms", meaning the very weapons of war that the military possesses in order to protect oneself from a tyrannical government.
we the people should be allowed to own and use any weapon that the military currently uses, in both our militia and individual capacity.

[wutitiz]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

Private individuals owned warships, which were the most dreadful weapons known to man at the time. And yet, the Founding Fathers clearly presumed that the government would contract them as needed.

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to grant Letters of Marque. So the framers did envision the regulation of crew-served military weaponry.

[wutitiz]

Originally Posted by bbronston

I agree about the 1st and the internet but I guess the reason I thought this was so interesting is that there is no question now that the founders were OK with citizens having magazine fed, semi-automatic rifles. They existed prior to the writing of the 2nd and they weren't banned. Period. Plus, they were not strangers to modernization so the argument that they might have had crude semi-auto rifles then but they couldn't imagine AR-level rifles (or whatever) just makes no sense. This Girardoni was clearly a leap forward in modernization and development. The evidence that weapon development would take large leaps was right in front of their faces.

I'm just surprised that there hasn't been more comment about the rifle video. Were you guys already aware of this thing? Am I just late to the party?

It's something to keep in mind next time a gun-control advocate issues their meme of 'the framers knew only of single shot muskets.' We've all heard that point made a thousand times by the anti-gun folks. Next time, I will ask them 'what about the 20 shot Girardoni.

Alan Gottlieb also makes the point that given the primitive medicine of 1789, the single shot weapons then were as horrific as (say) an AR-15 is today. Yet the framers saw fit to include the Second Amendment, and obviously saw the right to bear arms only second in importance to the rights listed in the First Amendment.

[arctichomesteader]

Ben Franklin actually invented an improved (deadlier) hand grenade during the revolution, with a shell of interlocking pieces that would fragment when it exploded. It was also packed full of bits of metal, etc. A pretty nasty weapon really, and there were never any restrictions on them until 1934 when FDR pushed for the NFA.

Franklin also created poison rifle projectiles.

[jambo101]

Too bad those founding fathers couldnt travel through time to today and reassess their wording of the Constitution in a more modern mental frame of mind.As i believe things written 200 years ago may not represent todays realities.

[monkeywrenching]

Originally Posted by bbronston

I understand what you are saying but I don't think you are following me. The 2nd says that the federal government may not infringe on the right to keep and bear an arm. It does not say that Congress doesn't have the right to limit certain weapons. So, as long as they don't limit your right to keep and bear an arm, they have not infringed on your right. At least, that is the logic that I think the SCOTUS would have to follow. Maybe not, I'm not a constitutional scholar but that's what makes sense to me. I'm not saying I agree with this at all, however.

BTW, I'm not even considering the militia part. I don't think that clause has any bearing on the discussion one bit. The amendment does not say that the right is dependent on there being a militia, despite what anti-gun people want to believe.

congress is the federal government, as they are the only ones in the federal government allowed to make law. the potus does not even have that right, not even with executive orders.