What guns were like when the 2nd amendment was written

[IronLionZion]

and why it's time to update our laws. Yes, we do have updated communications laws about internet and technology and other stuff long after the 1st amendment was written. And we have passed and repealed prohibition and slavery amendments.

[Just reading posts]

1. So get cracking on repealing it. How hard could it be?

[IronLionZion]

2. We can do it

People act like gun control means repealing the 2nd. Any kind of background check or limit on type of weapons means the fascists are coming to oppress you. It's not.

[Just reading posts]

7. As I've said elsewhere, some gun control proposals are certainly Constitutional,

disagree with them though I may.

Just pointing out that the prospects of actually repealing the 2nd Amendment are laughably low.

[passiveporcupine]

44. The OP is not about repealing the 2A

But because of ridiculous responses by the NRA and gun nuts, some of think it will probably be better to just do that. The SC sure didn't help this country when it failed us on the decision about the 2A.

[Just reading posts]

56. Sure it is. It ends, "And we have passed and repealed prohibition and slavery amendments."

It's obviously saying that if we could repeal those, we could repeal the 2nd.

But because of ridiculous responses by the NRA and gun nuts, some of think it will probably be better to just do that.

They can think it all they like. It's not as if it's going to happen.

The SC sure didn't help this country when it failed us on the decision about the 2A.

Have to agree to disagree on that one.

[passiveporcupine]

60. That doesn't mean the OP wants to repeal necessarily

It's an option, but there are better ways to prevent all the gun deaths in this country that I think should be tried first.

In the two cases cited, the only way to fix those problems was to repeal the right that was given/taken in the first place.

[Just reading posts]

64. I think it's pretty clear.

there are better ways to prevent all the gun deaths in this country that I think should be tried first.

Really? I'm intrigued...what are the various methods that would prevent every single gun death to the end of time?

[passiveporcupine]

65. Not playin

Buh bye

[Just reading posts]

66. Just asking for a clarification.

Be well.

[onehandle]

3. Kudos on successfully tamping down gun control! nt

[Just reading posts]

8. As Bert said in "Tremors 2".....

Doing what I can with what I got.

[Hoyt]

13. Easiest way to do something about it is to elect Democrats and change Supreme Court. Even Scalia

said gun control is Constitutional and he only talked of guns at home. Not the BS we see nowadays.

[MyOwnPeace]

29. "Just reading...."

You owe me a new keyboard - I snorted my soda all over my keyboard when I read your response!!!!

[Duckhunter935]

4. we have also updated firearms laws

the big changes in 1934, 1968, and 1986. This ended the manufacturer for civilians and limited ownership of fully automatic firearms.

[IronLionZion]

6. People act like it is so impossible

we can do more about high capacity magazines, background checks, control of gun shows and private sales, and more.

We are long due for some updated laws. It is possible.

[TeddyR]

10. Agreed

That there are some laws that can be passed. But a lot of them simply feel like passing a law for the sake of passing a law, even though the law in question will have little impact.

[IronLionZion]

11. That's the case with most laws

We're never going to please everyone. And some use that as an excuse to do nothing.

[TeddyR]

24. We have many gun laws already in place

That are often not enforced. Not sure that we need to add more layers of laws that won't be enforced. I tend to think that we should think long and hard before enacting laws that impinge on constitutionally protected rights.

[passiveporcupine]

45. Why don't you write one then?

Since you seem to know what we really need.

[yurbud]

20. Do you have more details on that?

[stone space]

31. Cool. How many folks have been shot by fully automatics in the past year?

we have also updated firearms laws

the big changes in 1934, 1968, and 1986. This ended the manufacturer for civilians and limited ownership of fully automatic firearms.

Just wondering how effective this approach has been.

If it's been effective, perhaps we should try a similar approach with semi-automatics.

[Duckhunter935]

32. Very few if any

More power to you, you are more than free to try banning them.

[stone space]

34. Sounds like an effective appoach, then.

[Duckhunter935]

35. I am against it but I support your right

To push for it

[stone space]

37. Why would you oppose something that you suggested and admit has ben effective?

[Duckhunter935]

38. Because it is not feasible

There are hundreds of millions of semi-automatic firearms in civilian hands now compared to very few machine guns back in the 30s. Billions of magazines over 10 rounds and they can now just be printed.

[stone space]

39. What percentage of gun owners are law-abiding, in your opinion?

Just trying to get an estimate of how many of the hundreds of millions of semi-automatics we could get off of the streets with such an approach.

[Duckhunter935]

40. 99%

Probably not as many if you ever manage to get your dream passed. I do not think that will ever happen.

[Press Virginia]

55. The like to pretend they're only concerned with criminals

But they sure target law abiding people with their feel good laws

[passiveporcupine]

46. That sounds like a challenge.

I'm up for it.

[Duckhunter935]

47. Go for it

[Press Virginia]

53. Very few are shot with those scary black rifles

you hate

[3catwoman3]

5. I am fine with everyone having...

...all the muskets/ blunderbusses/ front loaders they want.

Excellent PSA.

[Just reading posts]

9. And in the meantime, you can have all the quills you want to exercise your 1st Amendment rights.

No internet, tv, or radio, though, since they didn't have those when they wrote the Constitution.

[packman]

16. You know - when people make an argument like that

I wonder about their grasp on reality.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[SCantiGOP]

19. Just Reading Posts:

Do you think the analogy you presented between the 1st and 2nd amendments is actually valid?

[stone space]

33. Yeah, I've noticed folks here threatening to exercise their First Amendment Rights...

...of Freedom of the Press to print off AR-15 lowers with 3D-Printers should they be made illegal.

But the Founding Fathers (hallowed be thy names!) never anticipated 3D Printers capable of printing working firearms when they wrote the First Amendment guarantees of Freedom of the Press, and an argument could certainly be made to that effect, given a sane Supreme Court.

[Duckhunter935]

36. I do not think they imagined

The internet and the hate speech covered under the first amendment either.

[passiveporcupine]

48. Unless there is free software they can buy out there

to use with their 3D printer, most of them probably aren't educated enough to be able to do that.

[Scootaloo]

67. This is such a sad, sorry argument

It's not an argument of specific technologies, but at the concepts at the core of the amendments.

The core concept of the 2nd amendment is the maintenance of a civilian militia. Remember at the time a professional standing army was seen both very expensive and very risky (see the third amendment for another example of this concept.) Rather than take that expensive risk, defense was going to be maintained mostly through calling up civilian units for specific actions, then sending them home. To accomplish this, those civilians would have to have access to weaponry. And at the time, there was no real distinction between military and civilian weapons - the guns used to blast beavers were the same as guns used to blast the British. So the idea of some homesteader pulling out his musket when someone rang the bell in the town square made perfect sense - and actually worked to some degree.

The situation has changed a little bit in 230 years. We have a professional standing military. Every city and town has a professional (in theory) and (usually) armed constabulary force. Were "Red Dawn" to actually become a thing, the weaponry that American civilians have access to would be vastly outstripped by the weaponry of the invading force - your AR-15 isn't going to Wolverine shit in an arena defined mostly by remote-controlled explosions.

Simply put the 2nd amendment is like the QWERTY keyboard -a period-reasonable solution to a period-specific problem, the application of which actually hampers things in the modern era.

By contrast, the concept of the 1st amendment is protecting the free expression of ideas. This concept has not diminished in relevance in the least. Unlike the 2nd amendment, advances in technology have enhanced the 1st amendment, rather than hinder it. Also unlike the 2nd amendment, the 1st does not call for regulation of the methods by which it is implimented.

Simply said, you're trying to compare apples to giraffes.

[TeddyR]

12. The Supreme Court

Soundly rejected this type of argument in Heller:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , 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.

[Hoyt]

14. Yeah, and Scalia only talked of guns in the home. We have a chance to get rid of the racist Justices

in the next 8 years. That will change a lot with respect to gunz and other important issues.

[TeddyR]

22. You really think that Supreme Court justices Kennedy, Roberts, Thomas and Alito are racists?

Really? I'd like some specific examples of what makes these individuals racist. Earlier this year the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion reinforcing the fact that the 2d protects the right to keep and bear arms. Does that make the remaining justices racist?

[Hoyt]

27. You don't?

[TeddyR]

28. You didn't answer my question

I asked for specific examples of why you think the Supreme Court justices are the racists you accused them of being. Specifics. And no, I don't think the members of the Supreme Court are racists. So, why specifically, do you think Justices Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan are racists?

[passiveporcupine]

49. They said arms,

they did not specify what kinds of arms. The 2nd does not prevent us from making laws that ban more guns than we have in the past.

[DirkGently]

18. Of course everyone knows they didn't really mean that.

A person could "bear" a Stinger missile, hand grenades, a suitcase nuke, nerve gas, etc. ad infinitum. No one thinks that all modern "bearable" weapons should be kept in the home or carried by civilians.

None of the modern argument from proponents of "The Second Amendment" has anything to do with Constitutional principles or democracy or anything else. The idea was that colonists could have law enforcement and militias in lieu of a standing army, not for civilian yahoos to nurture fantasies of fighting the government or preparing for the zombie apocalypse or whatever. Above all, bearing arms was to be "well-regulated."

The discussion today isn't even about "arms." It's about guns. Just guns. Only guns. Guns and guns and more guns.

What we have today is a deliberately warped, pseudo-religious philosophy developed for the sole purpose of selling expensive guns to a lot of hobbyists and a fair number of dangerous nuts. The magazines are full of ridiculous "tactical gear" catering to a fantasy that civilians can be "ready" for some unspecified future disaster for which all of it would be fully useless if it ever actually occurred.

The Founding Fathers would vomit at the thought of the modern NRA and its lunatic arguments that a crowded modern society should allow private ownership of massive firepower anywhere, by anyone.

[TeddyR]

23. I agree and disagree with some of your points

But the idea that the Second Amendment says anything about "regulating" firearms is incorrect. There is tons of literature out there that confirms that "well regulated" meant "in good working order" or "well functioning," not subject to strict regulation. Setting that aside that fact, the Second Amendment becomes nonsensical if you adopt the "subject to strict regulation" interpretation. For example, the Second would read:

A militia subject to strictly regulated gun ownership being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The "strictly regulate" and "shall not infringe" clauses are completely at odds with each other.

[MillennialDem]

26. Ok, so members of the militia have to be in good working order too. In relatively good shape

(air force/navy standards are fine. no need for spec ops level) physically, and well functioning - ie subject to a mental health exam.

If not, we'll put them through boot camp and/or psychiatric care to make them fit. Sound good?

[Press Virginia]

54. Federal law says "able bodied"

In its definition of the militia

[Press Virginia]

52. Madison was fairly clear about the benefit

of Americans being armed.

And if you're a male between 18 and 45, you are a member of the Militia under federal law

[deathrind]

15. The 2nd will not be repealed...

And it should not be IMO. Pistols / Shotguns / Rifles for hunting, sport shooting, self defense should not be taken away. Having said that the 2nd should be revisited and brought up to current times.

There is no good argument against 100% background check on all firearm sales. Another aspect that should be heavily regulated if not banned all together is the high capacity magazines/drums/clips. A 100-200 round drum in an AR15 can be emptied in well under 1 minute. This alone would save lives. The Tucson shooting is an example of that.

[packman]

17. Sounds sensible - A good beginning anyway

Hope is the 2nd will be repealed and America will go the way of Australia , but would accept this as a start of a long road .

[yurbud]

21. it doesn't need to be repealed--it just needs the kind of limits we place on speech, religion, etc.

You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater when there's no fire, shout obscenities at a daycare center, or practice human sacrifice as part of your religion.

Reasonable restrictions on gun rights are roughly the same.

[TeddyR]

25. There are all kinds of limits that can be placed on gun ownership that are probably constitutional

There's simply no political will to enact new laws.

[MyOwnPeace]

30. Yes,

"political will" - the courage to stand up to the NRA - or the courage to run for office without their $$$

[passiveporcupine]

50. There is a lot of political will

We just got voted down and now nothing will happen.

We almost proved that change can happen in this country, in spite of the oligarchy. Now it probably won't happen for at least eight years. And as long as the NRA is still giving out millions to congress critters, nothing is going to happen. JMHO

[Press Virginia]

57. You want a type of gun banned that

is used in 11% of mass shootings and has been used to kill fewer than 250 people...which is down from the 330 killed by rifles 5 years earlier

[passiveporcupine]

59. It's not a matter of just counting bodies

It's a matter of counting how many bodies each time a gun is misused.

You really cannot compare the two. As long as these guns are available, along with the body armor, the huge magazines, drums, the gear that helps these shooters look awesome while ending their lives in a blast of glory...these mass shootings will continue to escalate.

You OK with that?

[Press Virginia]

61. Drum mags have been used exactly once and the gun jammed

Every Town USA puts the use of "assault weapons" at 11% of the mass shootings in the last 7 years.
Rifles, account for less than 1% of gun murders...which puts the body count for "assault weapons" lower than the total number of murders by rifle.

And based on their stats, adding in the 2 shootings this year, about 150 people have been killed in these shootings and 350 injured.

The hysteria is unfounded. More people have been killed by lightning than "assault weapons" over the same time period

[passiveporcupine]

62. I'm fine with my hysteria thanks

I value lives above toys that make boys feel big and strong.

And what qualifies for a mass shooting, is not the kind of mass shooting that has the world so worked up right now. We are talking about the big mass shootings, where it's not just a guy taking out his family, but someone deliberately going out to kill as many strangers as they can and die in the process. Most mass shootings are not what we are talking about because most of those guys don't have to get all dressed up and take a semi-auto with a huge mag in it to do the job they intend to do.

I'm not wasting my time with the constant excuses any more. Buh Bye!

[Press Virginia]

63. Oh...if we're not using the FBI defition, the body count drops to under 100

Over the last 7 years.

More people have been murdered in Chicago, this year, than killed in mass shootings where a scary black rifle was used.

[yurbud]

73. or with NRA bucks going to their opponents.

[Duckhunter935]

41. It's always in the details

That's when it tends to fail.

[Press Virginia]

58. How many times has a drum mag been used in the 15 mass shootings

involving "assault weapons"?

I'll give you a hint...less than 2 and the gun jammed


The 15 mass shootings comes from Every Town USA and their study of mass shootings going back to 2009

[deathrind]

69. I guess....

Hoping the firearm jams is an effective strategy.....good luck with that.

You seem to have missed the larger point I was making in regard to the high capacity aspect no matter the form factor.

[Press Virginia]

70. Beats being afraid of something that's been used a single time and malfunctioned.

With millions of these standard capacity mags in circulation, how are you going to enforce the ban?
You think people are going to turn them in?

I keep hearing about "common sense" gun reforms and I've yet to see any "common sense" applied. It's the same standard response...irrational fear and hysteria over a gun that is rarely used and kills relatively few people.

[deathrind]

71. The Tucson shooter

Had 33 shot clips ( no jams by the way). Had he only had 10 and had to reload then people would have been able to subdue him sooner and some of those who dies might not be dead. Stop being obtuse. Honestly if you need more than 10 shots you are in a fire fight u have no business being in.

How would you ban them...

There is a long list of banned items that were not banned and then were...we have done a pretty good job of keeping them that way.

[Press Virginia]

72. The VPI shooter used 10rd mags and killed 32 people

clearly the size of the mag doesn't translate to stopping the shooter who thinks ahead

[Warpy]

42. Also, what the country was like

The authors of the constitution had been through a revolution and had defeated the well trained army of one of the most powerful colonialists on the planet. They were convinced that farmers and shopkeepers who trained once a month could take anyone on.

By the turn of the century, they knew the citizens' militia was pretty worthless, so a professional army was established. The second amendment should have been repealed at that point, giving local control over things like gun laws--lax on the frontier and strict in the cities and towns--but they never got around to it.

It wasn't a huge problem until the NRA started to shill for gun manufacturers by insisting the second clause meant that every felon, insane person, wife beater, and their toddlers should be encouraged to own firearms, the more lethal the better.

Clearly this is nuts.

The country has changed greatly and the second amendment needs repeal and possibly replacement. Otherwise, gun owners run the risk of strict constitutional constructionists on the next USSC deciding that only members of the militia--police, military and National Guard--should be permitted to keep and bear arms.

[IronLionZion]

43. I think our national guard is our well regulated militia

between our standing military, reserves, national guard, and law enforcement, we have enough trained and sworn officers to repel an enemy invasion with their weapons.

Bubba running around the woods playing with his AR-15 is not going to save us from the soviets

[Press Virginia]

51. Federal Law says "bubba" is a member of the Militia

if he's an able bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45.

And the soviets ceased to exist about 25 years ago

[IronLionZion]

68. That's what Putin wants you to think