You have the right to own a musket and make the musket balls in your house.

[SoonerPride]

How's that for Constitutional originalism for ya?

[Politicalboi]

1. I like it

I've been saying it for a few years now. They always complain about changing what the fore father meant. They meant Muskets.

[valerief]

3. and only witin a well-regulated (meaning regulations!) militia. nt

[Tumbulu]

16. Yep! nt

[Loudly]

2. And when the goofs show up here to insist you use a quill pen

explain the difference to them.

[valerief]

8. The Constitution and Bill of Rights don't mention quill pens. nt

[Marengo]

10. It doesn't mention muskets either...

Unless the definition of arms is muskets only.

[Chan790]

23. That's a technical dead-end for them.

Unless they're going to argue that the Bill of Rights gives them the right to own a thermonuclear device or that DHS has no right to limit the size and type of knife one can carry on a commercial flight, they're already conceding that the government has the right to ban ownership or restrict conveyance or usage of certain classes of arms from them. Nowhere are they expressly given a right to own firearms specifically either. In the broadest definition, any weapon of war is an armament...including explosives, firearms, blades, farm implements, war-hammers and the aforementioned thermonuclear device.

"Arms" is vague. The devil is in the details. The lack of clarity on what constitutes "arms" or what "arms" is limited to or inclusive of should grant the government broad berth in what they permit or restrict within the class as nobody is arguing that it doesn't grant the government some discretion.

[Marengo]

35. As I recall...

In the late 18th century, weapons which were crew served such as cannon, mortars, grenades, etc., were generally refered to as ordinance. Muskets, carbines, & pistols as arms. It's been a number of years since I studied the subject, but I do remember a common reference at the time to a "stand of arms" which included a musket, bayonet, and cartridge box. Essentially, the standard infantry arm of the day and the basic elements to render it operational as a weapon in the field.

[ElbarDee]

51. I think you are right.

I remember reading about villages having a cannon for public defense or something. But a stand of arms, as you say, for the modern infanty arm would be what?

m16, a magazine, and body armor?

I really don't know how the people could be expected to keep this in their homes safely.

Guns do not belong in a progressive society. Period.

[Marengo]

63. In the Marine Corps, we were issued six magazines...

with our 782 gear. We were expected to keep those with us. Rifles and bayonets were stored in the armory. The flak jacket, useless against small arms fireand universally despised, was also part of the basic gear issue.

As for safe storage, In my own case everything is stored in the safe.

I disagree with your last point. IMO, and it's just that, a progressive society should regard it's members as adults and partners, if you will, in it's defense and policing. Not as children who need to be controlled and managed. For the state to allow it's citizens the right to bear arms indicates a measure of trust. Yeah, a romantic view I suppose, but one I hope we can strive for.

[ElbarDee]

64. What is 782 gear?

I really don't know anything about the military other than what I see on TV and movies.

[Marengo]

65. 782 refers to the basic equipment issue...

From the battalion supply level.

Let's see if I can remember...

helmet
flack jacket
2 canteens with covers & one canteen cup
equipment belt
first aid kit
suspenders
2 rifle magazines pouches (for Marine issued M16/M4)
e-tool
poncho
ALICE pack
sleeping bag
sleeping pad
waterproof bag
cold weather jacket
watch cap
glove shells with inserts
and...6 M16 magazines

I think that's about it

[Llewlladdwr]

57. You recall slightly incorrectly.

The word you want is ordnance. An ordinance is an authoritative rule or law.

[Marengo]

62. LOL!...Thanks, as you can see, it's been a while

[Historic NY]

24. Well thats whats was available...

and thats what was later modified.

[Travis_0004]

21. Freedom of speech

Freedom of speech in 1776 meant discussions in a public forum, or an article in the newspaper.

The founding fathers did not envision Television or the internet, so we should regulate freedom of speech to technologies used in 1776.

[RomneyLies]

25. Your NRA talking pointt was predicted above. n/t

[JoePhilly]

43. Did you know that there are still words you can't use on network television?

Did you know that your use of the internet is regulated?

Time to do the same for "arms" ... increase the regulations.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

52. Are you an NRA supporter?

You sound like one. Do you support them?

[Travis_0004]

56. I support the second amendment

I'm a life member of the Second Amendment foundation.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

58. You're answering a question I did not ask.

[Travis_0004]

59. On the issue of the second admendment I agree with the NRA.

I don't send them money, because I wish they would be more neutral in politics.

[TheKentuckian]

4. Should we apply the same logic to the rest of the bill of rights?

[Zoeisright]

31. What else has changed so much?

Honestly, I challenge you to come with ONE THING in the Bill of Rights OR the Constitution that has changed as much from the day of the original framers to today.

I'm fucking sick of twisted complete lack of logic.

[obamanut2012]

49. Slavery and who can vote

And how Federal officials are elected, just to name a few.

[RegieRocker]

5. Real good one

Not. Your logic dictates military and police to also use the same. Logic fail.

[SoonerPride]

12. false

The government can use any weapons at its disposal.

Just as you aren't allowed to own a tank.

[axetogrind]

19. You are completely wrong.

You can own a tank if you have the money, you can even have a working main gun if you pass the BATFE background check and pay the $200.00 tax stamp.

[JoePhilly]

44. Replace "tank" with nuclear warhead.

[axetogrind]

46. That's absurd.

Nuclear material is tightly controlled with good reason. Tanks are not.
Besides, I don't make the rules, take it up with the BATFE.

[JoePhilly]

48. Recently, Scalia made a comment on this you might want to watch. Not Absurd at all.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/07/29/scalia-nuclear/

Read the article at that link as well. If you can carry it, it could be considered an "arm" under the 2nd Amendment.

[Glassunion]

20. I hate to barge in here, but you can own a tank.

They ain't cheap though.

[Journeyman]

6. Why do you wish to so radically restrict your freedom of speech? . . .

[clffrdjk]

7. So

Just how are you posting here with your printing press?

[SoonerPride]

9. i have no freedom to post here.

there is no free speech guarantee on this site.

[clffrdjk]

13. Agreed this sight is a private entity

But using your idea that the constitution limits us to the technology of the time of writing then we have no right to post anywhere online, hell no right to use a telephone to call our reps, no right to use a modern printer to make flyers.

[Zoeisright]

32. That is one of the dumbest things I have ever read.

Don't you gun nuts have ANY logical reasoning skills at all?

[clffrdjk]

34. Apparently not

Please teach me the error of my ways oh wise one.

[JoePhilly]

45. Actually, a strict reading of the constitution could narrow the definition of "arms"

to the weapons of the day. And so you would have a right to own those.

As for other weapons, the government could create laws and regulations regarding the purchase and ownership of other weapons.

Importantly, the continuum might allow no ownership for any other weapons, but more likely, they laws would allow for the ownership of certain weapons along some scale. So perhaps, after meeting the requirements, you could purchase and own a rifle, but not a tank.

You are conflating what you'd have a "right" to own, with laws allowing and restricting the ownership of other weapons.

That's actually how TV and the internet are arranged. TV and Internet service providers are REGULATED. You still have your free speech "right", but when you try to exercise it via the internet, the service providers are regulated.

To test this, start sending child porn around the internet, and when they arrest you, make the argument that you were simply exercising your right to free speech and see how that works for you.

[liberal N proud]

11. We need to think the way the founders did when the 2nd amendment was written

Guns fired one round, then you had to reload. The target had time to retaliate or flee.

100 round assault rifles did not exist.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. But grape and chain shot did

"Give them a whiff of grapeshot"

- Napoleon Bonaparte

[liberal N proud]

37. Grapeshot refers to artillery, not personal weapons

No one is going to haul a cannon into the mall or school and start shooting. And even with the cannon using grapeshot, it requires reloading and unless you have a battery of cannon, you are vulnerable during the reloading process.

[X_Digger]

26. 20 round "assault weapons" did, though..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

20 round magazine, fired a .46 caliber ball at velocities comparable to a modern day 45ACP.

[derby378]

29. Ya beat me to it!

Little by little, we'll bring everyone up to speed. And we will win.

[liberal N proud]

36. It was an Austrian weapon, How many of those do you suspect were used in the US at the time?

Did anyone in the US even know of their existence?

It was a different world when the 2nd amendment was written and ratified. Guns were used for hunting and basic protection, not sport.

[X_Digger]

38. Lewis and Clark carried one in 1804. n/t

[liberal N proud]

39. The 2nd amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[X_Digger]

40. And the Girandoni was made in 1790. So yes, it was known at the time. n/t

[liberal N proud]

41. In Europe

[X_Digger]

42. M. Lewis was one of the first to have one. n/t

[liberal N proud]

50. New technology that was not widely accepted or understood by those who ratified the 2nd amendment

The general weapon of the day required the shooter to reload between shots giving time for the target to retaliate or flee.
This new technology was used by very few and unlike today, was not quickly proliferated through out the general population because they either were yet not informed of it or could not afford to move to the new technology quickly.

You are talking about the next great breakthrough in weapon technology 1791, a time when technology was slow to be integrated or accepted. Most of the weapon owners of the day understood only the prevalent technology of the day and did not have the NRA Magazine or other publication that focused on new gun technology.

When people purchased weapons in 1790, it was primarily for hunting to eat and occasional protection from wild animals. The most common guns in the Civil War:
32 Colt 1849 - loaded with loose blackpowder and a bare bullet, referred to as "cap and ball,"
32 S&W No. 2 - Loaded much faster, 10 or 15 seconds with experience, then two minutes to load the much more common cap and ball revolvers
36 Colt 1851
36 Colt 1862
44 Colt 1860
44 Remington
58 Springfield Musket
577 Enfield Musket
Burnside Carbine
Colt Walker & Dragoon
Confederate Pistols, Carbines, & Shotguns
Henry Rifle 1860
Sharps Carbine
Smith Carbine
Spencer Carbine
Less Common Guns of the Civil War
Artillery

Most weapons used in the 1860's were still single up to 6 rounds then required reloading. Long after the ratification of the 2nd amendment and the introduction of the repeaters mentioned. Most people still relied on single shot weapons and they still wreaked havoc during the Civil War.

The point is we don't need weapons that can fire off 30, 90 or 100 rounds, becoming killing machines.

[X_Digger]

54. Did you not know that the henry was a 'repeater', too?

No, the point is that repeating rifles were certainly foreseeable in 1791- e.g. the girandoni, and multiple barrels on guns had been around for quite a while. See 'pepper pot' handguns.

But all this is academic. Rights aren't limited to means used to express them at the time of their protection. The right protected by the second (or first, or fourth) pre-dated the constitution.

[Major Nikon]

14. I used to do that with my dad

It was a lot of fun.

I'm not convinced anyone has a "right" to even that much.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. What other rights would you roll back to the late 1700s

Voting for white male landowners only?
Hand set printing presses?
Bond servants?

I for one am not really interested in being a slave

[SoonerPride]

18. those items were changed....

and my point is the 2nd amendment is an anachronism.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. Then say it outright and not use the cutesy but bogus musket thing

[derby378]

27. Preach it, brother!

These guys don't know jack about American history, let alone that rifle with the 20-round magazine that Lewis and Clark took into the wilderness.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. No so much interested in preaching more in rational calm discussion

The cutesy posts and the ones full of the F-word, or "all gun owners have blood on their hands" are not helping things in the least.

Someone else has theorized that the radical anti gun people are in fact plants from the pro gun people. I find that hard to believe, but some of them are doing serious damage to their cause.

[Mr.Bill]

28. Can I have a Cannon? n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. Have you tried B&H in NYC?

[JoePhilly]

47. Some in this thread miss a critical aspect of your suggestion.

So let's imagine that the 2nd Amendment was interpreted to mean only those arms that were available at the time. And for fun, let's even include the other weapons people are arguing existed beyond the Musket.

That would mean everyone has a RIGHT to own those weapons, but they don't have a RIGHT to obtain others.

Some assume that this naturally means you can't own any other weapons beyond this narrow set. That's not necessarily true.

The government could, quite easily, set of a series of laws and regulations which would allow one to meet certain criteria, and by doing so, purchase and own additional weapons.

The ownership of other weapons, beyond those you have a RIGHT to own, would be regulated.

Think of it like graded driver's licenses. Many states allow a teen to drive with a limited license, where they can't drive after a certain hour, or perhaps they can't have non family members in the car when they drive. My driver's license allows me to drive any car or light truck, but I can't drive a Comercial Dump Truck or an 18-wheeler. For those, I need to meet certain additional criteria.

The same basic approach could be taken with regard to weapons. There is a limited set to which everyone has a RIGHT. And then past that set, there are graded licenses required. You pass the criteria, hell, you can have a tank.

[LibertyLover]

53. Actually my husband owns 2 rifled muskets

and has made musket balls for them at home. Well, he did it outside in the open air because of melting the lead. One of the muskets was for use out in the field when he was doing Civil War reenacting. It didn't really shoot anything other than blank charges. The other musket on the other hand was for competition shooting and fairly accurate at short to medium distances.

[MrDiaz]

55. where

does it say that?

[cherokeeprogressive]

60. I don't remember anyone ever saying I DIDN'T have that right... Clue me in.

[slackmaster]

61. Well, there's an original idea.

Trashed thread #425

[backscatter712]

66. DISAGREE! WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR NUCLEAR WEAPONS!