Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Weapons control in the US was simply limited by and individuals need and cost. Land mines existed, grenades existed, all sorts of firearms existed - shotguns, rifles, muskets, hand guns.
Private citizens owned all these, including cannon or at least swivel guns. Private citizens and/or private businesses actually owned ships of war (often sanctioned by the government to use as privateers).
Add mortars and rockets to that list; all in universal use in the 1700s and long before.
The founders did indeed intend for people to own semi-auto firearms. Had they not intended it, they would have limited the designs of firearms people could own.
The Founders weren't stupid people, they knew darn well that firearms technologies, like any other could and would evolve. The proved their intelligence and foresight by the very fact that they did not specify limitations on the evolution of firearms technology and instead insured that firearms technologies could evolve without regard to the rights of firearms ownership.
The right to own firearms isn't guaranteed for the firearm but the firearm owner. It is not possible to regulate the advancement of technology because no matter what laws or regulations are put in place, someone somewhere will always figure out how to advance it anyway.
When people try to apply laws, rights and so on to tools and other objects, it shows their inability to understand what a right is in the first place.
The founding fathers were not stupid when they wrote the Bill of Rights, and they knew the first right that needed to be addressed was the Right of Free Speech but they also knew that if the govt did not listen to or try to limit free speech, the only way to make the govt listen was by the 2nd. Without the means to defend ones freedom of speech, all the other rights are just words written on paper.
I don't own a MSR or 'assault rifle', or any other type of rifle for that matter but I have become interested in the subject over the past couple of years. I've also become more interested in the history of firearms and today came across this video which, from a historical and political context, is very interesting to me. I thought I'd share for two reasons. First, for any history buffs out there, if you haven't seen this before, you will really like it. Second, it pretty much blows away the argument that the founders would never have allowed citizens to own semi-automatic weapons or military-style rifles, had they existed. It turns out they did exist, and existed before the 2nd amendment was written, and they were obviously not excluded. The rifle was the Girardoni and you can learn more about it here:
It wasn't illegal for a private citizen to own a 100 gun man 'o war back then (the 18th century equivalent of a nuke) even though it would obviously have been completely out of reach of the average person because of the cost. So yea, the founders obviously intended for free Americans to be able to personally own military grade hardware, though I'm also sure they never anticipated how destructive military hardware would become 200+ years in the future.
I really think the current laws allowing sane, non-criminal citizens to own neutered semiauto only military rifles is a reasonable balance between our right to arm ourselves and our need to maintain a certain level of public safety. I say it with a heavy heart because full auto is so damn fun and I know I would never misuse it, but unfortunately there are too many crazies out there who wouldn't if full auto weapons were affordable and readily available.
It wasn't illegal for a private citizen to own a 100 gun man 'o war back then (the 18th century equivalent of a nuke) even though it would obviously have been completely out of reach of the average person because of the cost. So yea, the founders obviously intended for free Americans to be able to personally own military grade hardware, though I'm also sure they never anticipated how destructive military hardware would become 200+ years in the future.
I really think the current laws allowing sane, non-criminal citizens to own neutered semiauto only military rifles is a reasonable balance between our right to arm ourselves and our need to maintain a certain level of public safety. I say it with a heavy heart because full auto is so damn fun and I know I would never misuse it, but unfortunately there are too many crazies out there who wouldn't if full auto weapons were affordable and readily available.
Modern weapons technology is irrelevant in terms of the vast majority of crimes and murders. You know, it comes down to practicality as well. And that holds today as much as it did 250 years ago. A cannon or armed frigate was not used in street crimes in 1780 obviously because they were not practical. Today as well, in spite of all the bad publicity, so called "assault weapons" are rarely used in conventional crimes. Nevermind grenades, rocket launchers, or claymore mines.
Assault riles are not used in murders (that is, select fire weapons). I will repeat that again - THERE HAS BEEN ONLY ONE MURDER BY AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON ON RECORD IN THE US (at least since the days of Bonnie and Clyde). The reason is not because it is so highly regulated, the reason is a criminal is not going to be carrying a full sized automatic rifle into a bank or on the street, it tends to attract attention. And if it is used, the untrained will find the fire rate and muzzle climb to be uncontrollable. The bad guy will hit the cealing more then his intended target. It also has a small caliber bullet, designed as it is to be used where logistical supply regarding size and weight is at a premium. The semi-auto AR15 variants used in well publicized mass shootings? These nuts aren't carrying it because of its firepower, it's not a practical street weapon in civilian form for the many of the previous reasons stated. But it's now part of a phycho uniform, a modus operandus, a copy cat device...and statistically insignificant. Needless to say, the same devestation can (and has been) be achieved via 80 year old pump shotguns.
A criminal's weapon of choice is a cheap concealable handgun, always will be, not a long gun or automatic weapon or any other modern weapon. It's as simple as that. With that in mind, technology that existed 150 years ago with the development of metal cartriges and revolvers into mass production matches there needs today, the only improvement being perhaps light weight materials and semi-automatic (but a revolver would suit them fine as well, and still does in street crime and random murders).
I find the flaws in your analogies too numerous to go through them
There are no flaws in my analogies. Not one. If your logic can be applied to the second amendment, then it can be applied to any of the other individual rights codified in the Bill of Rights. If you honestly believe that my analogies are filled with flaws, then at least point them out to me, otherwise I'll have to assume that you can't defend your assertions and just don't want to admit you are wrong.
Quote:
and you refuse to address my main point that there are two aspects to the 2A...what it actually says and what we both hope it means.
There aren't two aspects, and I don't just hope it means something, I know what it means. You say to ignore historical context when interpreting the Constitution, but that can't be done. An honest attempt to interpret what the Constitution actually means has to be accompanied by an examination of the historical facts that led to it's drafting. Context is critical. We have to understand why the founders included an amendment, to know what the amendment means.
In other words, you have to know the why to understand the what ..... Fortunately, the founders, in their infinite wisdom, made this real simple for us. So, what Right does the 2A protect? The "right of the people to keep and bear arms, correct? Ok, now why do we have this right? You need not look any further than the first clause of the amendment it's self. The reason the people have the right to keep and bear arms, is because a "well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state".... So, if citizens would have to form a well-regulated militia, would single shot .22's be efficient to the preservation of this well-regulated militia? Obviously not, so the government CANNOT limit us to single shot .22's. I don't know how it could possibly be any more clear.
Quote:
Anyway, let's both just hope that your extreme example never reaches the light of day at the SCOTUS.
This much, we can agree on, because if ever any of my examples were to come to fruition, that would trigger a Constitutional Crisis of epic proportions.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 06-23-2014 at 04:00 PM..
I really think the current laws allowing sane, non-criminal citizens to own neutered semiauto only military rifles is a reasonable balance between our right to arm ourselves and our need to maintain a certain level of public safety. I say it with a heavy heart because full auto is so damn fun and I know I would never misuse it, but unfortunately there are too many crazies out there who wouldn't if full auto weapons were affordable and readily available.
I agree with this whole heartedly. I don't have a problem with the way the 2A is currently being interpreted. I'm not sure I want to open the floodgates and let people buy a full auto firearm, or other military grade weaponry, as easily as they can buy a semi-auto.
However, that is just mine and your opinions, and I think we are both smart enough to know the difference between our own opinions, and what the Constitution actually says, or rather, what it actually means. If the the Second Amendment to the Constitution had been interpreted correctly in the Heller decision, they would have ruled that the sorts of weapons protected are those that have a reasonable relation to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militia.
I agree with this whole heartedly. I don't have a problem with the way the 2A is currently being interpreted. I'm not sure I want to open the floodgates and let people buy a full auto firearm, or other military grade weaponry, as easily as they can buy a semi-auto.
However, that is just mine and your opinions, and I think we are both smart enough to know the difference between our own opinions, and what the Constitution actually says, or rather, what it actually means. If the the Second Amendment to the Constitution had been interpreted correctly in the Heller decision, they would have ruled that the sorts of weapons protected are those that have a reasonable relation to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militia.
that is why your 1st paragraph makes you more of a social liberal than any conservative or Libertarian.
I have no problems at all with anyone owning anything at all, including felons that have done their time and released from prison and that are not on any parole at all.
they did their time, let them become productive citizens again with all rights restored.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
