General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhen the second amendment was penned, people owned flintlocks.
Do you know how much time it takes to reload one and get a second shot off? Long enough for the 'prey' to get away.
Back then, the authors didn't fathom a gun that could kill 49 people in seconds. If they had the ability to see into the future I believe the language would have been very different.
Just my two cents.
jtx
(68 posts)than those used by the British military at the time.
The colonial revolutionaries had superior accuracy and range that enabled them to kill British soldiers at distances beyond the effective range of the British soldiers' smooth bore muskets. The ballistic advantage was a major factor in favor of the revolutionaries.
That citizens should have the use of force against government is something so fundamental that it was written into the Bill of Rights, second only to the freedom of speech, which is also under attack, even on this board.
Study history so that it need not be repeated.
rogerashton
(3,920 posts)jtx
(68 posts)The two main reasons that Ferguson rifles were not used by the rest of the army:
The gun was difficult and expensive to produce using the small, decentralized gunsmith and subcontractor system in use to supply the Ordnance in early Industrial Revolution Britain.
The guns broke down easily in combat, especially in the wood of the stock around the lock mortise. The lock mechanism and breech were larger than the stock could withstand with rough use. All surviving military Fergusons feature a horseshoe-shaped iron repair under the lock to hold the stock together where it repeatedly broke around the weak, over-drilled out mortise.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Please explain, not seeing how that has anything to do with the discussion.
"The Girandoni system was adopted, in great secrecy, as the Austrian military repeating air rifle (Hummelberger and Scharer, 1964/65). It has been recorded that the system was invented in 1779 or 1780, but deliveries of these guns to the Austrian army did not begin until between 1787 and 1791. Hoffs (1977) classic reference on antique airguns and Hummelberger and Scharer (1964/65) indicate that about 1500 Girandoni military airguns were produced and that finally they were retired from service to Olmütz in Bohemia in 1815."
http://www.beemans.net/Austrian%20airguns.htm
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)and effective in their conflicts against the Turks and Prussians in the time period of the weapons short service life. It's downfall being complexity and manufacturing technology inadequate for the design.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Spent time in the Tyrol have you? I doubt it.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Than those who actually did? And what relevance is my travel history to the subject?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)There are quite powerful airguns on the market, go get one for your collection to play with.
Or, try taking out 49 people in a nightclub with one.
It's a fucking distraction. There were no semi-automatic repeating firearms in existence when the 2nd Amendment was written, but you guys bring up your cherished historical pop gun every time.
Perhaps you just don't understand firearms very well. The word "fire" means something.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)I know well their capabilities and limitations. According to those who used it in combat, it was accurate and effective, and unless you were serving in the Austrian army in the late 18th century, your opinion doesn't carry the same authority.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)Precharged. In concept, expended reservoirs were to be delivered by runner to filling stations directly behind the firing line and then returned. Girandoni invented a high volume filling device, and a vehicle for transporting large numbers of pre-charged reservoirs. The hand pumps were essentially a backup, and if I remember correctly, issued to every second soldier.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)It wasn't even a firearm. A Daisy BB gun could fire faster, more reliably and to greater effect.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Now you go pump something 1500 times for 30 shots. You're probably good at it and well practiced.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Not a "pump gun"
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Stick to law, physics definitely isn't your strong suit.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Seen one fired have you?
They just took the world by storm, didn't they.
They were impractical curiosities.
You want to pump 1500 times for 30 shots, have at it, but they simply were not at all comparable to semi-auto firearms with interchangeable clips. This is an utter canard.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 15, 2016, 09:40 AM - Edit history (1)
Indicate the system was capable of generating over 200 ft lbs of muzzle energy.
beevul
(12,194 posts)The Puckle gun is a tripod-mounted, single-barreled flintlock weapon fitted with a manually operated[3] revolving cylinder; Puckle advertised its main application as an anti-boarding gun for use on ships. The barrel was 3 feet (0.91 m) long with a bore of 1.25 inches (32 mm). The cylinder held 6-11 shots depending on configuration, and was hand-loaded with powder and shot while detached from the weapon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun
Repeating firearms were nothing strange to the framers.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)You never know when Uncle Sam might become an annoyance.
UtahJosh
(131 posts)Even if your interpretation is correct (I don't think it is..."well regulated militia" was intended to fight hostile invaders, not our own government), it's next to meaningless in this day and age.
A citizenry armed with automatic weapons wouldn't last long against the government if the military were willing to back them up. And if the military took the side of the citizens, the gun ownership issue still wouldn't matter much.
So unless you're suggesting that American civilians also have the right to keep mortar rounds, heat-seeking missiles, tanks and fighter jets, your argument fails.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Hint...It wasn't for fighting indians or the Spanish...no, a lot of people would do well to read the Federalist/anti-Federalist papers before pretending to understand the motivation of the founding fathers....
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)UtahJosh
(131 posts)I had no idea. Thanks for setting me straight on the motivation of the founding fathers.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)...in favor of assuming you knew...
UtahJosh
(131 posts)Try knocking off the unwarranted condescension and attempt a civilized conversation next time. It's what grown-ups do.
First time I've ever used the ignore feature. Nice work genius.
6chars
(3,967 posts)this is easy to figure out. it was against the british. the british tried to disarm the american colonists who might defend the colonies against them. the founders were quite aware of this and wanted to put into the constitution that this was indeed a right.
hunter
(38,299 posts)6chars
(3,967 posts)in addition to or as opposed to the situation with the British army?
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Inter-state wars, &c &c...These guys had plenty to consider.
"execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" covers a lot of concerns.
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."
Madison to Jefferson on A bill of Rights...
"Should a Rebellion or insurrection alarm the people as well as the Government, and a suspension of the Hab. Corp. be dictated by the alarm, no written prohibitions on earth would prevent the measure. Should an army in time of peace be gradually established in our neighbourhood by Britn: or Spain, declarations on paper would have as little effect in preventing a standing force for the public safety. The best security agst. these evils is to remove the pretext for them"
Virginia Ratifying Convention, LOTS of militia discussion.
Madison again
Give me leave to say, that the only possible way to provide against standing armies is to make them unnecessary.
The way to do this is to organize and discipline our militia, so as to render them capable of defending the country against external invasions and internal insurrections.
the laws of every country ought to be executed
The militia ought to be called forth to suppress smugglers.
"I conceive that we are peculiarly interested in giving the general government as extensive means as possible to protect us. If there be a particular discrimination between places in America, the Southern States are, from their situation and circumstances, most interested in giving the national government the power of protecting its members.
This clause speaks of a particular state. It means that it shall be protected from invasion by other states.
Henry:
If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress
Nicholas
Another worthy member says there is no power in the states to quell an insurrection of slaves. Have they it now? If they have, does the Constitution take it away?
6chars
(3,967 posts)One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)From what I have read the 1775 confiscation attempt of the Concord MA. The colonials were concerned about being defenseless in case of additional Indian attacks. Guess the idea of having to wait a few days for the troops in Boston to come to your rescue wasn't too popular.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)Dem2
(8,166 posts)It means a lot, unless you're a supporter of mass-slaughter?
Marengo
(3,477 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)Any weapons available to government...they just finished banishing an oppressive rule with civilian arms...
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The Constitution renders armed rebellion irrelevant, and provides for putting down insurrections.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The notion that the Constitution embodies some kind of mechanism for armed revolt against the government is bullshit.
Your argument is also bullshit. I will type this slowly for you, since you didn't understand it the first time. The Constitution, which you think includes a right of revolt implicit in the Second Amendment, provides for putting down insurrections, which George Washington used to full effect against rebellious citizens.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)You are wrong.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Dem2
(8,166 posts)The 2nd Amendment was added to appease southern slave owners weary of slave revolts.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114
So, any more untruths you'd like to peddle, supporter of mass murder?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Dem2
(8,166 posts)Because you don't care how many people are MURDERED so long as you can have your little war-toys.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 15, 2016, 10:46 AM - Edit history (1)
But the vital role the militias were to play in protecting the nation shouldn't be discounted either. One of the purposes of the new constitution was to improve the state militia situation mandated under the articles of Confederation.
And too many founders point to the notion of well-regulated militias for removing the pretext for (those "banes of liberty" standing armies to ignore.
Of course the militias had to well armed and well trained to be effective. No one wanted them to be disarmed - including Madison (as the paper you link clearly explains) when he wrote the amendment to limit the government to keep them from disarming the people/militias.
Washington was well aware of the deficiencies of militias, yet he knew of their importance per the Constitution. And though theories of "select' militias were considered, militias composed of the body of the people, providing their own arms, was made law.
"One of George Washington's first items to address, was the creation of a well regulated Militia. This work resulted in the Militia Acts of 1792. The first act passed provided for the authority of the president to call out the militias of several states "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe." The second act provided for the organization of the state militias, requiring that all male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 own a gun and be enrolled in the militia. In his first address to congress in January of 1790, George Washington urged congress to begin working on a Militia act. Congress did, and two years later, on May 2nd of 1792 the first act was passed. Here are Washington's words:
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.
The proper establishment of the troops which may be deemed indispensable will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the officers and soldiers with a due regard to economy.
..."
http://www.stateoftheunionhistory.com/2015/07/militia-act-of-1792-george-washington.html
Dem2
(8,166 posts)enemy.
This is one place where a compromise at the last minute was a complete fuck-up. It's clear that today's society doesn't need this stupid provision and it should be stricken. Sadly, gun coddlers will never let this happen, but we can at least try to minimize the damage whereas we can limit the weapons to hunting and self-defense with limited, possibly non-removable magazines (worked for the militiamen back in the day! One shot, baby!) I'm perfectly happy with my revolver for self-defense - the odds of me ever having to use it are millions to one anyway. Hunters generally only need one round chambered to hit a prey. Specialty uses where men put themselves in dangerous situations in the wild can be dealt with through rentals or other temporary use of high-fire rate weapons.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
Guarantees centered around the vital role of the well-regulated/armed Militias.
I understand the concerns about the current situation, and the obsolete nature of the primary intent in restricting the government. With the militia purposes diminished (or removed), more legislation seems doable.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)...and thankfully you alluded to right at the end of your post. You seem intelligent, we need to figure out a way to minimize risk while making some nice but not required features less accessible.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts).. in their respective state constitutions?
The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution. It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."
Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791. Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."
Dem2
(8,166 posts)If you're going to just toss gun-nut "I don't care about mass murder" hogwash at me, then just tell me now so I can put you on ignore. I don't have discussions with such people after spending nearly a decade trying to talk sense into these mouth-breathers.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)The fact that non-slave owning states, the same folks who went to the constitutional convention, also wrote an analogous protection into their own state constitutions gives lie to Bogus' claim.
It doesn't take more than that to make Bogus' claim.. bogus.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)My god, you just look to find exceptions, which is what gun-nuts do 24/7.
Try not to think of the tens of thousands of people murdered because of your thinking process.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)That's no 'exception', that's driving a mack truck straight through the center of Bogus' bogus claim.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)Enjoy. Have a nice life. Feel nothing with the count reaches 100 - so long as you have your artificial penis.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)Straw Man
(6,622 posts)http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114
Says one academic, in one paper, cited endlessly in gun-control polemics. His premise is refuted here:
http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2013/01/second_amendment_slave_control_not_the_aim/2/
And here:
http://blog.independent.org/2013/01/30/the-second-amendment-was-not-ratified-to-preserve-slavery/
And here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2246699
I don't have discussions with those who look the other way at mass human slaughter. I added the turd you linked to also.
I'm looking at it pretty hard, my friend. I'm just not coming to the same conclusions that you are. Good luck with your effort to get the Second Amendment repealed. Unfortunately, getting rid of it wouldn't get rid of "mass human slaughter," which has occurred in many countries around the world that have no such constitutional protections.
Anything to say about the historical inaccuracies pointed out by the articles I linked? Or are you doubling down on Professor Bogus?
eggplant
(3,906 posts)On Sun Jun 19, 2016, 01:56 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Bye
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7931561
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
He's welcome to block me if he likes -- although all I did was dispute the thesis of a historical study he cited -- but he's calling another DUer a "turd."
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 19, 2016, 02:02 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Grow a pair.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see a DUer being called a "turd". And, I'm not too disposed to protect pro-gunners from insult at DU.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)... is the "turd" he referred to. It's another DUer, whom he also blocked.
Apparently it's now OK to call other DUers "turds" if they don't agree with you.
Juror #5 acknowledges the insult, yet lets it stand. Pretty much says it all.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)More myth about the Militia. They made good skirmishers as demonstrated at the Battle of Cowpens. But it took highly trained and disciplined troops with the latest in military technology to prevail over the most powerful army the world had seen to that date.
Not that they banned anyone from owning Cannon (although excessive storage of powder was regulated within some developed area's). But it wasn't militiamen sniping from behind trees that won the war. Highly disciplined men in line of battle with the same smooth-bore musket's used by their adversary carried the day.
beevul
(12,194 posts)And that's what they do.
When you talk about the 2nd Amendment and semi-automatic FIREARMS the elite Girandoni Air Rifle Brigade springs into completely irrelevant action.
It's pretty funny in a sad way, really.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)when the 2nd Amendment was passed.
These people seem to lack humanity, I'll never treat them with respect until they start talking sensibly.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Why, there's nothing more sensible than walking into a night club with a set of pre-charged air bladders for your 50 caliber pump gun and 100 ball bearings.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)Us poor lab rats did get bored at times.
I do get the point, it's just that it's not even worth acknowledging what passes for an "argument" by those who 1st think "must defend the gunz" after a massacre.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Who actually used the weapon in combat?
Marengo
(3,477 posts)mwrguy
(3,245 posts)according to Bernard Cornwell
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)"What's Lt. Sharpe doing there?"
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)"a well regulated militia,"
a rather important element.
jtx
(68 posts)How does that clause fit with the next one "the right of the people"?
ileus
(15,396 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)There was no internet to circulate hate-filled speech at warp speed, or Twitter to facilitate Trump's mysogynistic rants, but the First Amendment still applies to this new technology. If someone thinks the 2d has outlived its purpose or that firearm technology means it is outdated then work to repeal that amendment.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)There are many limits placed on our enumerated rights. Our rights are limited whenever when they infringe on the safety, well being, and rights of others (as individuals or a society)
pipoman
(16,038 posts)The line is drawn with 70 years of SCOTUS precedent...amend the constitution...
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts).... and more far reaching limitations.
I don't have time to fully discuss (on my way to work) .... there are obvious laws r/t to the 1st that protect public safety, national security, proprietary info , etc ..... but there are also laws governing what doctors can say to their patients (some laws even requiring misinformation be given in the form of speech), laws limiting what can (or must be taught in schools (ie what teachers may or may not say r/t to creationism, evolution, slavery ....). folk have nee (recently) convicted for sending spam via email (speech again .... though i hate spam) .... our first amendment rights are extremely limited.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Laws restricting where guns can be possessed are pervasive and vary across states.
Any gun sold across state lines must be sold via a federally licensed dealer.
A rifle with a 16" barrel is legal. A rifle with a 15.99" barrel is a felony.
To buy a handgun in a state like NC requires a permit issued by the Sheriff due to a Jim Crow law that allows them the discretion to not issue based on "moral character" aka race.
Some states limit what firearms can be purchased to specific makes and models.
Some states require you to get permission, pay a fee and have a permit before even possessing a firearm at all. Have you ever seen free speech licensed where a person can't say anything without a permit?
Exercising your right to bear arms in public requires a permit in most states that requires training, a background check and fees. Have you ever seen that for speech?
And in others in addition to the above you must prove you have "good cause" to need to exercise your rights before being granted permission.
If you buy a rifle that's made in the USA but has foreign parts you have to count the parts of you replace any and keep over a certain percentage of US made parts or it's not legal- even if it's the same type part that changes nothing.
I could go on for a long time- guns are extremely regulated.
And some of your examples, such as a teachers lesson plan, are not even examples of free speech being regulated but an employer telling an employee how to do the job so they don't even count.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)None of the enumerated rights are absolute .... Not sure about the point of your post except to prove that rights are NOT absolute, nor should they be
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Sure, there are limitations on all amendments, the second has by far the most. A lot of people in these parts like to claim and pretend there aren't limitations on the 2nd and they couldn't be more wrong.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)All rights that may impact the public (and personal) safety, national safety and security ... and the overall safety and well being of society require limits.
I don't know of any limitations on the third ... but am sure if (horrifically0 war ever came to the US, there would be limits on the third as well.
I never claimed there were no limits on the second ... I simply believe in many areas there should be more.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Especially with Heller and McDonald. I am sure there are some tweaks, but the most commonly suggested "common sense" regulation suggestions in these parts are asked and answered constitutionally impossible waste of time suggestions.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)I was demonstrating the fallacy of that claim by pointing our how some areas ban exercise of the Second Amendment even in ones own home unless a proper license it applied and paid for. Or how most states limit exercise of the rights outside te home to people who jump through all kinds of hoops including training and background checks. And even then some states limit the right only to those that authorities deem to have "good cause" to need to exercise their rights.
That's far more restricted than anything in the First Amendment.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)PJMcK
(21,984 posts)Thanks for the details, Lee-Lee.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Speech never killed anyone.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Trump's inflammatory rhetoric was responsible for the Orlando attacks. And they aren't different issues - the First Amendment and the Second Amendment both protect a constitutional right, albeit different rights, and they should be interpreted the same.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The courts have to follow case law. Each amendment has its own body thereof.
The First Allows Trump's inflammatory rhetoric. Unless he is actively a conspirator, it all falls on the shooter.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)tenderfoot
(8,425 posts)eom
Abq_Sarah
(2,883 posts)I don't have to fill out a multi page form and undergo a background investigation every single time I vote or renew a drivers license.
tenderfoot
(8,425 posts)eom
Abq_Sarah
(2,883 posts)And found nothing about having to fill out a multi page form and undergoing a background check before you are allowed to cast each and every vote. Perhaps you could give us a link to that?
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Voting was far easier.
Have you ever bought a gun?
tenderfoot
(8,425 posts)eom
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)I would love to see that law in print- can you cite me the relevant statutes?
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)Where?
I registered to vote once, when I was 18. I've been voting for for 44 years now, and all I've ever had to do is sign my name.
I got my driver's license when I was 16. Showed them my birth certificate, took a written test, came back a few weeks later for a road test, and I was on my way. I do my renewals online.
Every time I buy a gun, I get checked for criminal and mental-health history. The NICS system is getting better, but this can still take up to a half an hour. If the NICS system is very busy, it can take several hours to get through.
If I buy the gun from someone out of state or from someone who isn't a licensed dealer, I have to pay a licensed dealer $35 + tax to do the check.
If it's a handgun, I have to do all the above, plus make a trip to the Sheriff's office, where I pay an additional $8 for the privilege of registering it with the State of New York.
In order to get the permit that allows me to own handguns in the first place, I had to pay $115 dollars, get four notarized character references, be photographed and fingerprinted, have an extensive background check with the State Police, and wait three months.
So no, it wasn't harder for me to vote or get a driver's license than buy a gun.
JCMach1
(27,553 posts)no?
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)But you could also own a cannon.
UtahJosh
(131 posts)At least not according to Antonin Scalia (prohibition of cannons comment at 1:52).
linuxman
(2,337 posts)Waldorf
(654 posts)Need to get rid of these computers and dang internet, as they weren't around then.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Angel Martin
(942 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)Those militias were THE first line of defense for our liberties. They, the people themselves, would uphold the ideals set forth in the Preamble, and uphold the guarantees made in the body of the constitution.
The militias HAD to be effective. They HAD to be well-trained and well-armed. They were "necessary".
I don't know what the founders envisioned, but having the people provide themselves with the best arms related to their efficiency as militias was what they wanted.
It was not so the people could take on the government, but because effective militias would remove the pretense for the government to maintain a large standing army in the 1st place.
I do not think the founders envisioned the people deciding the militias were NOT the best security, and that a huge military was.
THAT is where they got it wrong.
"Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." E. Gerry - debating the article that became the 2nd amendment.
ETA: They also didn't pen them lightly. But also figured the peole would ultimately decide.
"I am inclined to think that absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them, ought to be avoided. The restrictions however strongly marked on paper will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public"
...
Should an army in time of peace be gradually established in our neighbourhood by Britn: or Spain, declarations on paper would have as little effect in preventing a standing force for the public safety. The best security agst. these evils is to remove the pretext for them."
Madison to Jefferson, on a Bill of Rights being proper.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)It's the same context that the 3rd Amendment was written under, and the 3rd seems so irrelevant as to be a waste of ink from a modern perspective.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)what with the recreation of the militias into the federally 'controlled' National Guard.
And the much diminished role of the people as the organized militias originally envisioned.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Night Watchman
(743 posts)So where in the hell is my Minuteman III, huh???
pipoman
(16,038 posts)PJMcK
(21,984 posts)I want a couple of cruise missiles.
(sarcasm, if needed)
sarisataka
(18,458 posts)an internet nor computers, so does the Fourth apply?
FBI Wants Access To Internet Browser History Without A Warrant In Terrorism And Spy Cases
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141482211
Hekate
(90,495 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)75cal Military musket
http://milpas.cc/rifles/ZFiles/Black%20Powder%20Muskets/SHORT%20LAND%20PATTERN%20BROWN%20BESS%20MUSKET/slbbess.jpe
45cal flint longrifle
Just reading posts
(688 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)... as to think that technology would stay still for all time?
Even in the course of their lifetimes, technology was leaping forward in all areas (to include weaponry).
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)clarifies that the right to keep and bear arms falls under some type of structure, rules and regulations....the gun lobby with their NRA front has been able to buy politicians at will and the time must end.....there is no reasonable expectation based on the amendment that federal, state and local governments can't institute rules, regulations and restrictions on firearms
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I would almost say that outside of hunting.....any other weapon can't be possessed with being affiliated with a govt sanctioned and regulated entity which adheres to strict training, certification and yearly licensing
liberal N proud
(60,331 posts)They want to have the Second Amendment enforced, the enforce all of it. REGULATE!
jmg257
(11,996 posts)militia-grade guns would be in DIRECT contrast with that intent.
Might be better to argue that the NG is the "well-regulated militia" deemed necessary, and the people at large are the "unorganized militia", unlikely to be ever called up or mustered, and so of no need for keeping those weapons.
Not the original intent, but the people decided long ago that was OK.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Come on man, think of their dicks.
merrily
(45,251 posts)and as interpreted by the Supreme Court--or amend it. Offhand, I can't think of other options.
Given the way we fund elections, Congress seems highly unlikely to touch the Second Amendment. Given the current political climate, I am not sure a constitutional convention, which would open up the entire Constitution for amendment, would be a great idea.
It's very outdated.
Warpy
(111,106 posts)and citizen militias were seen as an alternative to that.
It only took a decade or two to see that wasn't going to work, that a small professional army was needed if only to provide training to citizens in time of war.
That amendment should have been repealed as soon as the citizen militia idea was abandoned.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)It has yet to be abandoned, at least on paper.
(b) The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
--https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
The further we get away from a citizen army, the less democratic our republic is. The end of the draft ushered in the age of the all-volunteer army that doesn't accurately represent the populace as a whole. This is both unjust and dangerous. It is unjust in that it allows the wealthier segments of society to duck out of the duty of defending their interests (or the nation's interests, if we're being generous). It is dangerous in that it establishes a "warrior class" that sees itself as separate from the society at large and not answerable to them.
I'm not saying we don't need a standing army. However, I think the European model of mandatory national service, with the addition of heavier reliance on a civilian militia, would be a lot healthier for our society than what we have now.
Calista241
(5,585 posts)From Caetano v Massachusetts, an 8-0 Supreme Court decision:
"In Heller, we emphatically rejected such a formulation. We found the argument that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment not merely wrong, but bordering on the frivolous. 554 U. S., at 582. Instead, we held that the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
Page 4
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)And they read newspapers that were printed with handset type. If they were illiterate, they depended on the town crier to tell then what was going on.
Nevertheless, those were state-of-the-art firearms in their day. I'm reasonably sure that as the Founders were drafting the Second Amendment, they weren't thinking "It doesn't really matter much anyway, because our weapons are so ineffective."
They didn't?
I call this outlook "presentism": the mistaken perception that people of earlier eras were unimaginative simpletons because human culture had not yet produced the technological marvels that are making us stupider and stupider with every passing day.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Yes. Individuals could and DID own fully functional artillery pieces. They were mounted on ships (for protection from pirates), or owned to support "independent artillery companies."
Now, I understand that's not the same as a modern semi-automatic rifle, but it's important to remember that these folks can and DID own the latest military technology of their day.
Personally, I ultimately would favor modifying the 2nd, but guess that won't happen any time soon.