Weapons considered “modern firearms” in late 1787 covered by 2A?

[timbo]

...but the majority of individuals must collectively be more powerful than the government.

Well...I'm not sure about that...what percentage of those living in the US at the time were actually fighting in the revolutionary war? For the sake of argument, I've heard 3%, perhaps a bit more, certainly not a majority.

Those 3% were more powerful that the sitting government....maybe not just in arms but also strategy and the will to win. Losing wasn't really an option with the colonists unless one wanted a long neck.

 

[Broc]

Well...I'm not sure about that...what percentage of those living in the US at the time were actually fighting in the revolutionary war? For the sake of argument, I've heard 3%, perhaps a bit more, certainly not a majority.

Those 3% were more powerful that the sitting government....maybe not just in arms but also strategy and the will to win. Losing wasn't really an option with the colonists unless one wanted a long neck.

How many were supporting that 3%?

 

[VetteGirlMA]

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

en.wikipedia.org

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.

Oddly enough if you read the original Caetano decision the MA supreme court stated that only weapons of war are covered under 2A which would have made the AWB unconstitutional using their own words.

 

[timbo]

How many were supporting that 3%?

I don't know that answer but I do know that many colonists were tories (sympathetic to the British crown). Many were banished (or worse) during and after the war.

 

[apander]

I don't know that answer but I do know that many colonists were tories (sympathetic to the British crown). Many were banished (or worse) during and after the war.

I have always read that about 1/3 were for America, 1/3 were for British and 1/3 didn't want to get involved just leave me alone.

 

[crispnipz]

Oddly enough if you read the original Caetano decision the MA supreme court stated that only weapons of war are covered under 2A which would have made the AWB unconstitutional using their own words.

I wonder if it is that the state seems to hate self-defense in general even more than it hates guns. A stun gun isn't even an actual firearm per se right? Reminiscent of the old practice of requiring an FID to get pepper spray. They will expand the definition of a gun when it suits them while at the same time ignoring their own definitions when it suits them. But in both of those cases, the state used gun laws to undermine self-defense not even involving guns.

 

[timbo]

I have always read that about 1/3 were for America, 1/3 were for British and 1/3 didn't want to get involved just leave me alone.

You maybe right...I've heard those numbers myself but couldn't find a cite for them...even if 33% were for America, I wonder how many actually made any effort to help those actually in the trenches fighting against the redcoats and their allies.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

I wonder if it is that the state seems to hate self-defense in general even more than it hates guns. A stun gun isn't even an actual firearm per se right? Reminiscent of the old practice of requiring an FID to get pepper spray. They will expand the definition of a gun when it suits them while at the same time ignoring their own definitions when it suits them. But in both of those cases, the state used gun laws to undermine self-defense not even involving guns.

Of course they hate self defense, because any time someone does it it's cutting into someone's government job security. Only cops can kill people. They have state power and immunity from their actions. So if a cop kills someone, lots of people swing into action, busily shuffling papers around, investigations galore and in the end the state declares that the state acted correctly. One kill ~ 20 jobs downstream that need to be saved. That's how politicians determine that cutting even 1 cent from any budget and the entire world will collapse into a black hole.

 

[Picton]

I have always read that about 1/3 were for America, 1/3 were for British and 1/3 didn't want to get involved just leave me alone.

I learned that too, but it’s older scholarship. Might be true, might just be convenient shorthand from the 1930s or so.

Atkinson’s new trilogy on the War might clear it up, but so far only the first one is out. It was really good, though.

 

[Davidk]

Both the citizenry and the military had muskets when the Constitution was written. Therefore, the constitution protects the right for the citizenry to own the same weapons as the military.

Pure, unadulterated logic.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Both the citizenry and the military had muskets when the Constitution was written. Therefore, the constitution protects the right for the citizenry to own the same weapons as the military.

Pure, unadulterated logic.

Heck, many citizens had rifles while the military had muskets. They had better arms than the government.

 

[Mesatchornug]

You maybe right...I've heard those numbers myself but couldn't find a cite for them...even if 33% were for America, I wonder how many actually made any effort to help those actually in the trenches fighting against the redcoats and their allies.

It's kind of moot, no? If ~3% were able to defeat the government, any additional number up to that approximate third would be bonus.

A majority (mentioned earlier) would be simply overwhelming.

 

[richc]

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!

Your son is a very insightful guy. Obviously the First Amendment has nothing to do with defaming another person. She is free to say what she wants but there have been substantial financial consequences for her actions.

 

[Picton]

It's kind of moot, no? If ~3% were able to defeat the government, any additional number up to that approximate third would be bonus.

A majority (mentioned earlier) would be simply overwhelming.

This is true, but suppose only 3% are willing to take up arms in a country where only 10% support violent overthrow of the government and 90% do not. Those 3% would have difficulty moving, finding medical treatment, feeding themselves, or finding places to train, consolidate, and organize.

By contrast, if their country is 33% supportive (plus another 33% lukewarm, or at least somewhat willing to shift with the winning side) it all becomes much easier.

I wrote a paper for a class decades ago that examined this question in terms of nodal theory, saying that if Boston and Philadelphia (say) were in open rebellion, the attitude in rest of the colonies didn't really matter much because it would lead to increased repression everywhere. I was probably simplifying then, but my professor liked it. It just goes to show that historians are still thinking about these things.

 

[OnTheRoad]

Remember this thread as the .gov says that you can't own a chunk of aluminum, a metal cylinder and freeze plugs, or a spool of plastic filament and the machine to melt it.

 

[Mesatchornug]

This is true, but suppose only 3% are willing to take up arms in a country where only 10% support violent overthrow of the government and 90% do not. Those 3% would have difficulty moving, finding medical treatment, feeding themselves, or finding places to train, consolidate, and organize.

By contrast, if their country is 33% supportive (plus another 33% lukewarm, or at least somewhat willing to shift with the winning side) it all becomes much easier.

I wrote a paper for a class decades ago that examined this question in terms of nodal theory, saying that if Boston and Philadelphia (say) were in open rebellion, the attitude in rest of the colonies didn't really matter much because it would lead to increased repression everywhere. I was probably simplifying then, but my professor liked it. It just goes to show that historians are still thinking about these things.

I agree.

I suppose it depends what that 90%does about it though, right? If they're sitting back with their bread and circuses, we probably end up with a junta, and that sucks. If they're die-hards for pure democracy, I'd tell them that sitting it out was a vote for the "whoever wins." If they resist, then the people enforced their will, and the system works as intended. The middle cases seem to be the muddiest.

Regardless, I think it's important that we and others continue to consider exactly these questions.

 

[Picton]

I agree.

I suppose it depends what that 90%does about it though, right? If they're sitting back with their bread and circuses, we probably end up with a junta, and that sucks. If they're die-hards for pure democracy, I'd tell them that sitting it out was a vote for the "whoever wins." If they resist, then the people enforced their will, and the system works as intended. The middle cases seem to be the muddiest.

Regardless, I think it's important that we and others continue to consider exactly these questions.

The good news is that when (not "if," sadly) we have a real live hot shooting civil war here, I suspect that the modern 3% (whoever they are) will have more than 33% support, even if the lukewarmers in the middle will be a smaller number.

 

[AHM]

The good news is that when (not "if," sadly) we have a real live hot shooting civil war here, I suspect that the modern 3% (whoever they are) will have more than 33% support, even if the lukewarmers in the middle will be a smaller number.

If a whole bunch of people think it's worth shooting about an issue,
it's probably an important issue.