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.
When the Bill of Rights was written, the Founding Fathers never envisioned the internet, telephones, telegraph, TV, Typewriters and all other forms of communications beyond what they had at that time, yet all those forms are covered by the 1st Amendment because liberals say the Founding Fathers were visionaries could see there would be advancements and made sure that they were covered. But, apply the same principles to the 2nd, and the Founding Fathers are called idiots and there is no way that they could foresee what could happen in the future.
If they truly could see into the future, I believe there would have been A LOT more restrictions placed on the federal govt.
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.
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:
actually, the founders intended for the "people" to be armed with the same sort of arms that a army would have. also the founders never intended for the USA to ever have a standing army/military either.
but if you go by your premise, then the founders never meant for the people to have computers or anything else to do with the 1st Amendment outside of fixed type set and a soapbox to be used for speeches.
I appreciate all the comments but I'm not trying to start yet another should we have any sort of weapon we wish conversation. There will never be complete agreement on that and that is fine. My only reasons for starting the thread are: a) I find the historical revelation of this mid-18th century technology (to me) to be very cool and b) regardless of the various arguments that are out there, the one that makes the claim that the founders could never envision a magazine-fed, rapid fire rifle when they assured the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms is now completely debunked.
I've never (to this point) heard this mentioned by any pro-2nd amendment folks and I am very surprised by that.
I've seen and heard it used quite often, but then, I pay attention to pro-2 arguments. Very few people in the shooting world seem to even be aware of the Girandoni, much less anyone else. Apparently it was ahead of its time but a pain to use practically.
...but if you go by your premise, then the founders never meant for the people to have computers or anything else to do with the 1st Amendment outside of fixed type set and a soapbox to be used for speeches.
Are you talkin' to me? If so, uh, no. The 1st amendment guarantees (among other things) the right to think freely and express those thoughts freely without government censorship. I have no doubt that they were framing that right within the context of political speech and never considered for a moment that an artist might want to place an upside down crucifix in a jar of urine and claim 1st amendment protection, for example. If they had, I suspect they would have been much more specific. In fact, I think they gave later generations way more credit for common sense than they should have. So, for the 1st amendment, the only question is which expressions were intended to be protected, not which media.
It's a completely different question with the 2nd. In the 2nd's case, it is both the right, itself, and the 'media' that are called into question. My point was that, with my learning of the existence of the Girardoni, the argument about the 'media' is no longer valid (if the question is Semi and/or magazine vs. a slow, one shot, muzzle-loader).
I think a sound rebuttal to the argument the founders never intended us to have semi-automatic weapons is the argument basically alleges the founders could not have foreseen the rise of modern weapons. However this is a group of men who built a system of governmnent unseen by the world at the time of it's inception. To argue these same men could not have foreseen the evolution of weapons is simplistic at best and insideous agenda driven bias at worst.
If Jefferson were around today and could witness the abuses of government right now, and then could witness a private citizen run off 30 rounds from and AR15, he would probably insist one be issued to every responsible citizen, along with generous amounts of ammo too.
I wish I could rep this more than once! Jefferson would be all for training and arming every able bodied law abiding person, its the only way ultimately to keep a government in check. I feel like it should be similar to jury duty, it's just something you do as a citizen of the U.S. Imagine how different all the recent upheavals of government would have played out if the citizens all had m4's and lots of ammo.
If Jefferson were around today and could witness the abuses of government right now, and then could witness a private citizen run off 30 rounds from and AR15, he would probably insist one be issued to every responsible citizen, along with generous amounts of ammo too.
Amen to that!
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.
If so, uh, no. The 1st amendment guarantees (among other things) the right to think freely and express those thoughts freely without government censorship. I have no doubt that they were framing that right within the context of political speech and never considered for a moment that an artist might want to place an upside down crucifix in a jar of urine and claim 1st amendment protection, for example. If they had, I suspect they would have been much more specific. In fact, I think they gave later generations way more credit for common sense than they should have. So, for the 1st amendment, the only question is which expressions were intended to be protected, not which media. 