What “arms” looked like when the 2nd Amendment was written

[Zorro]

One of the guns used in the deadly mass shooting in Orlando, a military-style AR-15 rifle, has lately become the weapon of choice for gunmen intent on harming the maximum number of people in a minimum amount of time.

Gun-rights advocates have fiercely resisted any calls for tighter regulation of these weapons in response to mass shootings. The NRA estimates there are around 5 million AR-15 rifles in circulation, with hundreds of thousands more manufactured each year. They point out that the vast majority of the weapons are never used to commit a crime.

The heated discussions over gun control and gun rights that inevitably follow mass shootings like the one in Orlando typically revolve around interpretations of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment. In full, the amendment reads, rather murkily, "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." The wording leaves plenty of room for legal and political wrangling over the meaning of words like "well regulated," "militia," "right," "people," "keep," "bear" and "arms."

The National Rifle Association has explicitly embraced a message of Second Amendment "absolutism" in recent years. "Absolutes do exist," NRA President Wayne LaPierre said after the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. "We are as ‘absolutist’ as the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution. And we’re proud of it!"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/13/the-men-who-wrote-the-2nd-amendment-would-never-recognize-an-ar-15/

[Igel]

1. To be followed with, "What the press looked like when the 1st Amendment was written."

And then "What cruel and unusual punishment looked like."

Many who like the idea of a living Constitution want parts frozen in time without updates. Or they think that "living" means it can be pruned and sections completely invalidated by the appropriate use of judicial fiat.

The press had to be free in a free society. Some government had fees associated with setting up a press, that limited it; or issued patents to allow a press to be used. There were per-sheet paper taxes that limited the free press. Notice that the grammar here is a bit old: "Freedom of the press" is like saying "the diet of the tiger is primarily dead animals." It doesn't have in mind a single tiger, but "tiger kind": "The diet of tigers is primarily dead animals" has the same meaning. So also "freedom of the press" is "freedom of presses". We're talking about the contraption made out of wood with lead inserts. Period.

But ultimately, "free press" meant that the use and operation of a press was free of government control. The idea of the "press" being periodical journalism and consisted of a press corps is strictly post-Constitution. That reporter arguing he should be allowed to do X because of the freedom of the press? "Fine, there's no restriction on the use of the press. You're going to jail." But what use is the contraption if you can't freely report? (That goes to free speech.) That the "press corps" is deserving of special rights is still a vexed issue.

The press was wooden and hand-driven. It had a slow turnaround time. You'd have to typeset the text and hand print it. The ink would have to dry. Then you'd have to fold it and distribute it, or bind it. It makes mimeographs look like rocket science. And the paper had to pass from hand to hand. I can produce 500 copies of a perfectly bound book in less time now than it would have taken to produce 500 copies of a two-sided broadside in 1790. Think of the possibilities of subversion, fraud, all the crime that his new technology allows. much better to be held to the old idea of the press. No? No.

Nobody expects the Constitution to be held to those standards. We update the technology, within reason. That seems like a reasonable thing to do, don't you agree? Even if with it comes all sorts of social ills. There are the words. Then there's the intent of the words. The intent can be altered as technology requires and society allows; it can't be rolled back, because of the nature of natural rights, inalienable rights. If a right is inalienable, it's not "social contract" time. Social contract rights are never inalienable. It's a definition thing.

We even update the larger conceptual issues around the technology. No longer is it just the press that should be free. Many think that the press corps should be some sort of immune system for the body politic, exempt from many of the strictures on us mere mortals. That's especially true of the members of the press corps.

If you like the WaPo article and you like the freedom of the press, here's what you want to have free of government intrusion:

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/illustration-showing-the-printing-press-upon-which-benjamin-news-photo/151390859

By 1790 it had a bit more metal, but the first all-metal press was from 1795. Tech didn't change much between Franklin's printing days and 1790.

Note it was not a poor man's sport, printing. Spendy, paper, ink, lead, repairs, manpower. And dangerous, with all that lead you'd have to handle.

[underpants]

2. The army is not established by the Constitution + read the THIRD Amendment

That is my short answer to the NRA and their watercarriers. Militias had to be ready to assemble for defense. It is generally considered now that we have a standing Army but it actually has to be funded by each new Congress. There was no standing Army them, a fact that Naval officers point out repeatedly to their Army colleagues (I have read and heard).

The 3rd Amendment puts the whole thing into context as does the article posted.

[Leontius]

3. Duh

[MosheFeingold]

4. Dangerous Argument

The arms in private hands during the Revolution (particularly certain domestic long rifles used to great effect sniping British officers) were often superior to the shorter range Brown Bess musket most commonly used by the British (although the Brits did have a small number of rifles, including a breach loading model).

There are a number of court cases that hold that the arms contemplated by the Second Amendment were, in fact, whatever would be the contemporary to whatever the military had access to, being that the purpose was to have an armed populous to serve as the militia (and also to keep the government itself in check). In fact, a number of liberal USSC justices danced around that argument.

Anyway, long way of saying this argument can be used against reasonable gun control and would not be my recommended approach.