When the second amendment was penned, people owned flintlocks.

[Avalux]

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]

1. Which were more advanced weapons

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. Check yer facts.

Ferguson Rifle

[jtx]

4. Did you read the link you posted?

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]

13. Girandoni air rifle

[jtx]

15. ??

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. Hoff’s (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]

32. It's a bullshit toy that gunners reference as a semi-auto in 1789

[Marengo]

44. A "toy" that Tyrollean sharpshooters in the Austrian army claimed were accurate...

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]

64. 1500 pumps for 30 shots

Spent time in the Tyrol have you? I doubt it.

[Marengo]

68. Did you use the weapon in combat? Doubt it, so how is your opinion worth more...

Than those who actually did? And what relevance is my travel history to the subject?

[jberryhill]

71. It's not a firearm, and you've never spoken to anyone who used one

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]

73. Provide a link where I claimed it was a firearm, and I happen to own a "big bore" air rifle

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]

74. I'll ask again, how is my personal travel history relevant to this discussion?

[Marengo]

88. The air reservoirs are detachable, and the intention was for the soldier to carry several...

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]

29. Oh god not that canard again

It wasn't even a firearm. A Daisy BB gun could fire faster, more reliably and to greater effect.

[X_Digger]

47. A 50 caliber bullet traveling as fast as a modern 45ACP? I don't think you're quite right. n/t

[jberryhill]

63. Yeah a pump gun can be dangerous

Now you go pump something 1500 times for 30 shots. You're probably good at it and well practiced.

[Marengo]

84. Displaying more ignorance on the subject. It's a pre-charged pneumatic design...

Not a "pump gun"

[X_Digger]

89. 750 psi. Are you even aware how much pressure that is? A .500 caliber slug traveling at 700fps.

Stick to law, physics definitely isn't your strong suit.

[Marengo]

117. Now, where did he run off too?

[Marengo]

50. Oh yeah, 150-200 ft lbs of muzzle energy is a real joke.

[jberryhill]

62. Bullshit

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]

75. You are displaying ignorance on this subject. The firing of extent specimens...

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]

129. There was the puckle gun.

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]

8. That's why I have several hundred MIRVs ready to launch in my back yard.

You never know when Uncle Sam might become an annoyance.

[UtahJosh]

19. "something so fundamental that it was written into the Bill of Rights"

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]

22. Do you know how the founder became the founders?

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]

34. By being privileged rich white men?

[Marengo]

45. Which would have spared them the gallows had they lost?

[UtahJosh]

57. Wow, thanks for the hint!

I had no idea. Thanks for setting me straight on the motivation of the founding fathers.

[pipoman]

67. You're welcome...you obviously hadn't bothered to actually read...

...in favor of assuming you knew...

[UtahJosh]

70. Yes, you're really on to me!

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]

51. well-regulated militia for defense against whom?

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]

111. Guns are useful to slave owners too.

[6chars]

122. is there any historical evidence this was guiding the framers?

in addition to or as opposed to the situation with the British army?

[jmg257]

136. They were worried about Indians, Spanish, British, Slave insurrections, rebellions, riots, smugglers

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]

137. Excellent post!

[One_Life_To_Give]

127. Coming 12 years after the French and Indian Wars

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]

20. What the fuck does this have to do with guns that can slaughter human beings with aplomb?

[pipoman]

23. The OP is pretending that muzzle loaders have something to do with anything...

[Dem2]

25. The founders never imagined that such weapons would be commonly available

It means a lot, unless you're a supporter of mass-slaughter?

[Marengo]

31. Unless you commune with the dead, it means nothing.

[pipoman]

33. They fully and completely intended for civilian ownership of

Any weapons available to government...they just finished banishing an oppressive rule with civilian arms...

[jberryhill]

35. Yes, after lone wolf attacks on nightclubs, the British gave up

The Constitution renders armed rebellion irrelevant, and provides for putting down insurrections.

[pipoman]

39. The British had provisions for "putting down insurrections" too....they were unsuccessful...

[jberryhill]

40. ...and no democratic process for changing their government

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]

41. Read.

You are wrong.

[Marengo]

46. What was the commonly accepted 18th century definition of a "free state"?

[Dem2]

80. That's kind of hogwash

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]

83. You don't get to make shit up and peddle it as truth.

[Dem2]

85. There's 102 pages you'll never read full of facts that you'll never know

Because you don't care how many people are MURDERED so long as you can have your little war-toys.

[jmg257]

93. There was definitely the Southern States concern. As the Virginia debates clearly show.

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&quot 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]

95. Even then the militias were a bunch of lazy drunks more likely to shoot each other vs. a perceived

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]

96. As Bogus describes - often ineffective - which is why improving their situation was "necessary".

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]

100. I think we can come up with compromises as I suggested in my post

...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]

98. So why did those slave-appeasing states like Vermont and Pennsylvania enshrine the same protection

.. 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]

99. How is that relevant to the article or points about the Constitutional Convention and the South?

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]

101. Bogus's paper presupposes his own conclusion-- that the 2nd was an appeasement.

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]

102. Speaking of self-serving bullshit

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]

106. I kick the leg out of Bogus' twaddle, with one simple post, and that's 'self-serving'??

That's no 'exception', that's driving a mack truck straight through the center of Bogus' bogus claim.

[Dem2]

108. I'm sure you believe that shit too

Enjoy. Have a nice life. Feel nothing with the count reaches 100 - so long as you have your artificial penis.

[X_Digger]

109. Aww, now I know I've struck a nerve; you resorted to insults. n/t

[Marengo]

116. How is your revolver not an artificial penis?

[Straw Man]

125. Washing hogs.

The 2nd Amendment was added to appease southern slave owners weary of slave revolts.

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

[Dem2]

131. Bye

I don't have discussions with those who look the other way at mass human slaughter. I added the turd you linked to also.

[Straw Man]

132. Bye.

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]

133. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

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]

134. This ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022202527#post33

... 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.

And, I'm not too disposed to protect pro-gunners from insult at DU.

Juror #5 acknowledges the insult, yet lets it stand. Pretty much says it all.

[One_Life_To_Give]

128. No they did it with Military Arms and a Trained Army

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]

130. The hell they didn't.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027915108#post129

[jberryhill]

97. Nothing

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]

104. Mass-murder means nothing when one is concerned about features that didn't even exist

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]

105. Talking sensibly?

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]

110. I did similar with a nail, paper cone, a tube and an air fitting stuffed into end of said tube

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]

121. Still claiming a Daisy BB rifle is more effective? Still claiming you know more than those...

Who actually used the weapon in combat?

[Marengo]

120. Your revolver didn't exist then, either.

[mwrguy]

2. 20 seconds for a highly trained infantryman

according to Bernard Cornwell

[KittyWampus]

12. one of my favorite reads

[Recursion]

113. Every time I saw Ned Stark or Boromir I always thought

"What's Lt. Sharpe doing there?"

[jaysunb]

5. Let's not forget

"a well regulated militia,"

a rather important element.

[jtx]

14. What do you think that clause means?

How does that clause fit with the next one "the right of the people"?

[ileus]

6. The purpose of the 2A didn't have anything to do with reloading times.

[TeddyR]

7. When the First Amendment was penned

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.

[Just reading posts]

9. +1

[etherealtruth]

11. The first amendment (like our other enumerated rights) is not absolute

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]

27. There isn't an amendment with more limitations than the second...

The line is drawn with 70 years of SCOTUS precedent...amend the constitution...

[etherealtruth]

56. I would beg to differ, i see the first amendment as having far more ....

.... 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]

58. And what do you know of gun laws?

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]

61. I am at work, I can cite you just as many limitations and laws related to the first amendement

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]

65. I think the point os that there is a volume of limitations on the 2nd

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]

69. I never denied the limitations , simply pointed out that I don't beleive it is the most limited

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]

82. The courts have drawn a pretty distinct line

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]

72. Your claim was that the First Amendment is far more limited than the Second

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]

76. you responded to the wrong post..

[PJMcK]

79. Interesting list

Thanks for the details, Lee-Lee.

[Duckhunter935]

37. Oops, them damn facts again

[treestar]

91. Totally different issues involved

Speech never killed anyone.

[TeddyR]

103. According to some posters on DU

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]

114. They don't have to be interpreted the same

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]

118. The IMT didn't hold that view in Nuremberg, and Julius Streicher hung

[tenderfoot]

10. I like that it's harder for people to vote or get a driver's license than buying a gun

eom

[Abq_Sarah]

48. Is it really?

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]

53. Then move to Florida

eom

[Abq_Sarah]

112. Gee, I looked at the Florida statutes

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]

59. I've done both in the last month

Voting was far easier.

Have you ever bought a gun?

[tenderfoot]

92. Not in Florida

eom

[Lee-Lee]

94. So I don't have to fill out a form 4473 and show ID when I get a gun from a dealer in Florida?

I would love to see that law in print- can you cite me the relevant statutes?

[Straw Man]

126. Do tell.

I like that it's harder for people to vote or get a driver's license than buying a gun

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]

16. Funny how the RIGHT always back off original intent when it comes to the 2nd Amendment,

no?

[GulfCoast66]

17. Correct

But you could also own a cannon.

[UtahJosh]

86. No you couldn't own a cannon.

At least not according to Antonin Scalia (prohibition of cannons comment at 1:52).

[linuxman]

18. Posted from your printing press, no doubt.

[Waldorf]

21. And when the 1st Amendment was penned, I believe it was with quill and ink.

Need to get rid of these computers and dang internet, as they weren't around then.

[Lord Magus]

26. Yeah, that's why this is a losing argument for gun control. -nt-

[Angel Martin]

55. but your right to free expression will still be protected !

[jmg257]

24. The 2nd was penned because the people had the right, along with the duty, to serve in the militias.

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]

28. Yep, the 2nd was written under the thinking that standing armies would always be a tool of tyranny.

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]

38. Yep , the people decided they are both sort of obsolete,

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]

30. They had an agrarian society then. We now sell WAR, ARMS, and HEROIN. nt

[Night Watchman]

36. The Second Amendment Doesn't Specify WHAT Kind of Arms We Can Own

So where in the hell is my Minuteman III, huh???

[pipoman]

42. This falls under the restrictions so many pretend don't exist.

[PJMcK]

81. The Minuteman III is too large

I want a couple of cruise missiles.


(sarcasm, if needed)

[sarisataka]

43. There also was not

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]

49. What you said. I'm all in favor of flintlock possession meself.

[oneshooter]

115. You mean like these?

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]

52. Your two cents worth was written with 21st Century technology. Just sayin'.

[TipTok]

54. Are you suggesting that you think they were so ignorant...

... 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]

60. doesn't really matter...the first 13 words of the 2nd amendment

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]

77. "well regulated" those are the words that are the key to effective control

They want to have the Second Amendment enforced, the enforce all of it. REGULATE!

[jmg257]

87. Not really, they relate to an effective militia - 'well-armed and well-trained'...banning

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]

66. All that time to reload makes one lose their stiffy.

Come on man, think of their dicks.

[merrily]

78. The entire bill of rights was written then. We have to either live with the B of R as written--

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.

[treestar]

90. +1

It's very outdated.

[Warpy]

107. There was also paranoia about having a professional military

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]

124. Justifiable paranoia.

That amendment should have been repealed as soon as the citizen militia idea was abandoned.

It has yet to be abandoned, at least on paper.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(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]

119. Ah yes, the old Flintlocks were the only weapons allowed by the 2nd Amendment.

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]

123. And quill pens.

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.

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.

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."

Back then, the authors didn't fathom a gun that could kill 49 people in seconds.

They didn't?

If they had the ability to see into the future I believe the language would have been very different.

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]

135. They also owned cannons.

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.