There are arguments that if the “founders” knew of that capabilities of modern firearms, they would change their position. My response is they legalized the most lethal firearms available at the time. Thoughts?
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Weapons considered “modern firearms” in late 1787 covered by 2A?
- Thread starter yogi
- Start date
snax
NES Member
I believe they intended the citizenry to be on even footing with the government.
Modern military weapons are just out of reach financially for most people, even if we could get them.
I'd love to stroll down to the dealership and get an A10.
Modern military weapons are just out of reach financially for most people, even if we could get them.
I'd love to stroll down to the dealership and get an A10.
bauer
NES Member
By this logic we would need to ban the internet because the technology of the time was limited to the guttenberg press and the quill and thus the founders never could’ve envisioned the change when they codified 1A
Edit: not directed at you; directed at the train of thought of others you’re eluding to
Edit: not directed at you; directed at the train of thought of others you’re eluding to
Text of amendment is not about types of weapons- it is about not to be infringed right to form a militia using any available weapons to fight off tyranny of the government.
What would result now in an immediate arrest and label of a domestic terrorist. Thx to laws passed by republicans, btw. The 9/11 shit made a full circle now and is getting used as they always intended it to.
Girandoni repeater. Came in .46 and .51 caliber with a 20 round magazine. Lethal out to 120+ yards.
All naval and land based artillery, capable of delivering chain, grapeshot, and ball. Oh- and the ship of the line, cutter, or sloop to carry those naval guns on. Back then they were all ride or die.
Grenades for shits and giggles.
Every bit of that will f*** you up as bad as anything available today, and the former will come with a triangle bayonet that ER techs will be challenged to stifle wounds from.
The founders weren't stupid. They weren't pussies, either. Every bit of it was legal, unrestricted, and both US governments repaid for those vessels, weapons, and artillery pieces that were expended or lost from private parties to break this nation free from England.
Last edited:
OP, you're posting on NES... no serious poster here is likely to disagree with you.
The Founders did not intend for citizens to be "equal to" the military; they intended for citizens to actually be the military, for all intents and purposes. So naturally, they wanted them armed well.
Subsequent events have given us a standing army, which most of the Founders were against. Meaning, they'd be even more adamant that the citizens should be well-armed. They saw a standing army as a threat to liberty, but what they probably meant was an army used as a police force (the way the British used theirs here).
I think the founders would have intended for us to be better-armed than the police, to prevent them from trampling our rights. JMO. And since today's police have a lot of the same shit the military has, well, there you go.
The Founders did not intend for citizens to be "equal to" the military; they intended for citizens to actually be the military, for all intents and purposes. So naturally, they wanted them armed well.
Subsequent events have given us a standing army, which most of the Founders were against. Meaning, they'd be even more adamant that the citizens should be well-armed. They saw a standing army as a threat to liberty, but what they probably meant was an army used as a police force (the way the British used theirs here).
I think the founders would have intended for us to be better-armed than the police, to prevent them from trampling our rights. JMO. And since today's police have a lot of the same shit the military has, well, there you go.
Parker Schreiber
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2020
- Messages
- 1,735
- Likes
- 2,519
Such discussions are a waste of time and effort. The "founders" disagreed on many things, and one can cherry pick among their writings and actions to support pretty much any position. What you, I, or the people making these arguments opine matters squat. What matters, at least until a different Supreme Court decides otherwise, is what's in the Heller and McDonald:
"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."
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2009
- Messages
- 2,135
- Likes
- 431
This argument taken to a logical extreme and applied to other things:
Does 1A apply to the internet?
Does 4A apply to your cell phone? Or to your vehicle? Neither existed in the late 1700's.
Does 10A apply in an age of being able to travel across the country in <6 hours
This is analogous to arguing that the law has little meaning and only means what people want to interpret it to mean at any given moment. This is one of the single biggest challenges we face these days. The law is meaningless unless we all believe in it, it's applied reasonably evenly, and is predictable in its meaning.
Does 1A apply to the internet?
Does 4A apply to your cell phone? Or to your vehicle? Neither existed in the late 1700's.
Does 10A apply in an age of being able to travel across the country in <6 hours
This is analogous to arguing that the law has little meaning and only means what people want to interpret it to mean at any given moment. This is one of the single biggest challenges we face these days. The law is meaningless unless we all believe in it, it's applied reasonably evenly, and is predictable in its meaning.
kerryman71
NES Member
The problem is, as was mentioned, people cherry pick what they like about something then say f*ck the rest. Throw out the parts of the Constitution they don't like but be damned if you infringe on what they believe in! Best part is, most of these asses have no idea what it takes to amend the Constitution!
Hypocrisy is beautiful. My son was talking about the whole Johnny Depp case and pointed out that Amber Heard stated that her 1st Amendment rights were violated in the case, then she limits who can comment on whatever social media platform she was crying on!
Hypocrisy is beautiful. My son was talking about the whole Johnny Depp case and pointed out that Amber Heard stated that her 1st Amendment rights were violated in the case, then she limits who can comment on whatever social media platform she was crying on!
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2014
- Messages
- 23,793
- Likes
- 29,882
Well.... there is a few that would disagree here... but let's not name names
It’s mind boggling when Antis say that the founders couldn’t have imagined todays weaponry. The Puckle gun was invented in 1718. While not a modern machine gun, to imply that someone couldn’t imagine a refined and improved version is ludicrous. DaVinci “imagined” helicopters and airplanes fer crissakes.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,505
- Likes
- 33,506
For a society to be both orderly and free, the government must be more powerful than any small group of individuals, but the majority of individuals must collectively be more powerful than the government.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2014
- Messages
- 23,793
- Likes
- 29,882
If you're arguing with someone they've made up their mind and they just want to take it out on you.
kerryman71
NES Member
I'll admit, sometimes it's enjoyable to beat the crap out of someone with facts, just to see them get pissy! I also enjoy tactfully letting them know how moronic their thought process is, even before they express it. However, I also enjoy not banging my head into a wall repeatedly!! If I feel like I can educate someone on something, I'll do it, as long as they're receptive to facts.
greencobra
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 27,198
- Likes
- 26,681
those founders...would have wet themselves, quit their day jobs, and put holes in everything in sight if they encountered "the good stuff." i did first time i fired a full automatic weapon and still remember the thrill. well, i kept my job....but you know...i excite easily.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,505
- Likes
- 33,506
Consider that the only two wars the US ever lost were against an indigenous people fighting with small arms and whatever they could scrounge up.
Parker Schreiber
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2020
- Messages
- 1,735
- Likes
- 2,519
So you think the war of 1812 ended with "Right, we'll call it a draw then?"
Why does anybody NEED a military style flintlock assault musket? Nobody is trying to take your fowling piece. We just need common sense laws.
I've never shot a full auto. I really need to change that someday.
I've never shot a full auto. I really need to change that someday.
That argument makes no sense as it's out of context.
The 2A is only there for one reason: provide weapons to the people so they can kill the people who need to die. It's that simple.
If the weapons being offered to the people aren't up to the task, it's a violation of the 2A.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,505
- Likes
- 33,506
I was talking about the two wars we lost to indigenous people with weaponry far below what the US had. I think we won the ware of 1812 making ineligible for that list. Are there wars we lost other than Viet Nam and Afghanistan?
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
The second amendment applies ONLY to hunting and ONLY using pointed sticks, pitchforks or shovels. In fact the second amendment doesn't even cover fishing, whittling a piece of wood or even harsh language. In 2022 you need to learn to defend your family with a spork ala John Wick.
Parker Schreiber
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2020
- Messages
- 1,735
- Likes
- 2,519
The British repelled the invasion into Canada, burned the U.S. Capitol and the President's Mansion, and the Treaty of Ghent meant that the United States achieved no concessions from the British except a return to the pre-war status quo. How is that a victory?
In 1777, 12 years before the 2a was written Benjamin Franklin, a founding father, wrote congress to accept the belton rifle.
There was also the
Puckle Gun, Girandoni Rifle, Pepper Box Revolver, knock volley gun, and you could stretch to the Roman cande.
These things existed and the founding fathers knew it when they wrote the 2a- hard stop.
There was also the
Puckle Gun, Girandoni Rifle, Pepper Box Revolver, knock volley gun, and you could stretch to the Roman cande.
These things existed and the founding fathers knew it when they wrote the 2a- hard stop.
Those arguments are all f*cking stupid.
If the founding fathers knew of the capabilities of future weapons and how hard rhe gov would try to take them, I believe they would have made the 2A more specific, adding something like:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, both weapons of today and future as they might change, shall not be infringed."
Their entire goal was to protect the people against the government because they knew that every government in history gets too big and oppressive.
Who knows, if they knew how bad it would get, they might have added another amendment to further solidify the 2A.
In the end, no one really knows how they would have reacted, but based on what we know, they would have made the 2A more bullet proof.
Keep in mind, they wrote this knowing people could own and build the same guns the military used. People could actually build better and more powerful weapons. At the time, the US wasn't too big, the frontier was not far, it was full of people with hunting, survival and fighting experience, it was full of people that just won a war against the most powerful military ... any of those people could have taken arms against the government. The founding fathers knowing that still wrote the 2A.
In my opinion, there is no way they would change their position for the worse. NO WAY.
Last edited:
The Founding Fathers knew there would be progress in the sciences and arts. They had the foresight to specifically write into the Constitution: Article I, section 8 regarding patents "… to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” They certainly did not expect to limit the Constitution and amendments to cover only what was in existence when written.
crispnipz
NES Member
The Commiewealth of mAss actually argued no as the basis for convicting a woman who possessed a stungun in response to her boyfriend beating the shit out of her
Caetano v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia
So, yeah, that I think encapsulates how MA feels about 2A and the right to self-defense broadly. Let a woman be battered because Ben Franklin captured lightning but didn't predict a firearm could one day produce lightning.
Similar threads
