• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

At the time the 2cd Amendment was written

swing_voter

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Messages
13,042
Reaction score
8,463
Location
'Murica
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Everyone had a muzzle loading musket. An expert infantry man could fire 4 balls in a minute, if it was smooth bore. The accuracy sucked. A shot every 15 seconds sounds kind of high, but that's what the internet says.


At the shootings in Vegas where 50+ victims were shot dead and at Orlando, in that gay bar, where 50+ victims were shot dead, how different would be the outcome if the shooters were using muzzleloaders?
 
Everyone had a muzzle loading musket. An expert infantry man could fire 4 balls in a minute, if it was smooth bore. The accuracy sucked. A shot every 15 seconds sounds kind of high, but that's what the internet says.


At the shootings in Vegas where 50+ victims were shot dead and at Orlando, in that gay bar, where 50+ victims were shot dead, how different would be the outcome if the shooters were using muzzleloaders?

You are ignoring a basic element, if you had laws making every single gun he had illegal, it wouldn't stop him as the penalties for murder are a lot higher than illegal possession of a firearm.

Hypothetical impossibility isn't a very good launching pad for a good thread either.
 
Everyone had a muzzle loading musket. An expert infantry man could fire 4 balls in a minute, if it was smooth bore. The accuracy sucked. A shot every 15 seconds sounds kind of high, but that's what the internet says.


At the shootings in Vegas where 50+ victims were shot dead and at Orlando, in that gay bar, where 50+ victims were shot dead, how different would be the outcome if the shooters were using muzzleloaders?

False equivalence.

Back in the days of muzzle loading muskets, they were the highest level of weapons technology at the time. The soldiers who faced the American militia forces were armed basically the same.

Meanwhile, weapons technology is ALWAYS advancing, as those rebels and red coats clearly weren't restricted to blunderbusses, crossbows, slings, etc..

Trying to argue that as technology advances and military forces have "more dangerous weapons" as against 2A rights is actually an argument FOR allowing citizens the same basic levels of access as the military forces they might have to "revolt" against.

There will ALWAYS be a tiny minority of people who will use their rights to commit crimes and harms, hence the issue with law enforcement and the need for a Judiciary.

However, that is also no argument to try to limit 2A rights by arguing Now is not the same as Back Then.
 
Just a silly argument that has been done before. The supreme court says the 2nd amendment is an individual right!


District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.[1] It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.[2]

Because of the District of Columbia's status as a federal enclave (it is not in any state), the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.[3] This point was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), in which it was found that they are.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed by a vote of 5 to 4 the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[4][5] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

 
You are ignoring a basic element, if you had laws making every single gun he had illegal, it wouldn't stop him as the penalties for murder are a lot higher than illegal possession of a firearm.

Hypothetical impossibility isn't a very good launching pad for a good thread either.
No, you're hypothetical.

If his guns were illegal, he would not have been able to obtain them.

Also, you're doing nothing illegal until you start shooting, with illegal guns you're walking around while breaking the law and may become visible to the law and identified.
 
Everyone had a muzzle loading musket. An expert infantry man could fire 4 balls in a minute, if it was smooth bore. The accuracy sucked. A shot every 15 seconds sounds kind of high, but that's what the internet says.


At the shootings in Vegas where 50+ victims were shot dead and at Orlando, in that gay bar, where 50+ victims were shot dead, how different would be the outcome if the shooters were using muzzleloaders?

At the time the 2nd amendment was written, a private citizen could own any piece of military weaponry they wanted. You would even find privately owned artillery. Check out David Bushnell who developed the first submarine used in war -- The Turtle -- while a student at Yale.

The founders knew very well what was out there, what could be developed, and made no provision to restrict it.
 
Everyone had a muzzle loading musket. An expert infantry man could fire 4 balls in a minute, if it was smooth bore. The accuracy sucked. A shot every 15 seconds sounds kind of high, but that's what the internet says.


At the shootings in Vegas where 50+ victims were shot dead and at Orlando, in that gay bar, where 50+ victims were shot dead, how different would be the outcome if the shooters were using muzzleloaders?

At the time of 2A a person could own any military weapons they wanted to. A person could own cannons and even a warship if they wanted. In your logic, if the time of 2A passed matters, a person would be allowed to own any military weapon made - no exceptions.

How many people would have died if the shooter instead was firing smooth bore cannons loaded with grape shot - to use old technology -or a 50 caliber mini gun using modern technology? Your logic does not work from any direction.
 
No, you're hypothetical.

If his guns were illegal, he would not have been able to obtain them.

Also, you're doing nothing illegal until you start shooting, with illegal guns you're walking around while breaking the law and may become visible to the law and identified.

That's why there are no illegal drugs or guns in this country - accordingly to you anyway.
 
No, you're hypothetical.

If his guns were illegal, he would not have been able to obtain them.

Also, you're doing nothing illegal until you start shooting, with illegal guns you're walking around while breaking the law and may become visible to the law and identified.

You mean like....oh,I dunno; illegal drugs or booze during prohibition?
 
I think the point the OP is trying to make, is that , back in the day, if a firearm could kill as many people in such a short period of time as one can today, the founding fathers may have thought twice about the second amendment
 
I think the point the OP is trying to make, is that , back in the day, if a firearm could kill as many people in such a short period of time as one can today, the founding fathers may have thought twice about the second amendment
The OP isn't trying to make any point. The OP merely creates troll threads, but never participates in them.
 
We are very lucky the shooter used a 2.23 AR 15. He was a pilot. A 55 gallon drum in a plane and he could have killed or horrifically harmed and disfigured almost everyone there.

The fact is that guns are low-kill count weapons for terrorists - domestic or foreign.
 
That's why there are no illegal drugs or guns in this country - accordingly to you anyway.
What do you mean?

I would make you take a class, pass a test and get a license to buy a firearm and I would keep a buy and five tir no-buy list.

Then I would make you transport your gun in a locked case.
 
You mean like....oh,I dunno; illegal drugs or booze during prohibition?
Oh, I'm sorry, precicely; he would be less likely to obtain them.
 
What do you mean?

I would make you take a class, pass a test and get a license to buy a firearm and I would keep a buy and five tir no-buy list.

What excellent guidelines and requirements before being allowed to vote, don't you think?

Pass a test
get a license to vote you have to show to vote
5 tier no vote list

That is what is needed to exercise a Constitutional right.
 
I think the point the OP is trying to make, is that , back in the day, if a firearm could kill as many people in such a short period of time as one can today, the founding fathers may have thought twice about the second amendment
"back in the day" if that were so, I think the founders would have made it crystal clear what the average citizen could own. In other words if it was used by the military it was good enough for the regular Joe.
 
What do you mean?

I would make you take a class, pass a test and get a license to buy a firearm and I would keep a buy and five tir no-buy list.

Then I would make you transport your gun in a locked case.
We already have enough like you in State and fed. govt. Don't need no more.
 
Everyone had a muzzle loading musket. An expert infantry man could fire 4 balls in a minute, if it was smooth bore. The accuracy sucked. A shot every 15 seconds sounds kind of high, but that's what the internet says.


At the shootings in Vegas where 50+ victims were shot dead and at Orlando, in that gay bar, where 50+ victims were shot dead, how different would be the outcome if the shooters were using muzzleloaders?

Are 4 deaths by an active shooter acceptable to you?
 
Everyone had a muzzle loading musket. An expert infantry man could fire 4 balls in a minute, if it was smooth bore. The accuracy sucked. A shot every 15 seconds sounds kind of high, but that's what the internet says.


At the shootings in Vegas where 50+ victims were shot dead and at Orlando, in that gay bar, where 50+ victims were shot dead, how different would be the outcome if the shooters were using muzzleloaders?
I'm pretty sure gay bars didn't exist at the time the Second Amendment was written.
 
I think the point the OP is trying to make, is that , back in the day, if a firearm could kill as many people in such a short period of time as one can today, the founding fathers may have thought twice about the second amendment

A dude in Japan killed 19 and injured 26 with knives.


In 1622, Indians killed 347 people in Jamestown without a single firearm.


I doubt the Founders would have reconsidered anything.
 
No, you're hypothetical.

If his guns were illegal, he would not have been able to obtain them.

Also, you're doing nothing illegal until you start shooting, with illegal guns you're walking around while breaking the law and may become visible to the law and identified.
/eyeroll

So all those guns running around that are illegal for people to possess but they still carry them and use them for crime, I guess that's just happenstance, right?

If someone is willing to commit murder a gun law violation isn't going to bother them.
 
/eyeroll

So all those guns running around that are illegal for people to possess but they still carry them and use them for crime, I guess that's just happenstance, right?

If someone is willing to commit murder a gun law violation isn't going to bother them.
Sure it is, the entire causal pattern of what I am doing completely changes if I have to work at getting my favored gun.

Sure some will get through, but the goal is to reduce statistics, not utopia.
 
Sure it is, the entire causal pattern of what I am doing completely changes if I have to work at getting my favored gun.

Sure some will get through, but the goal is to reduce statistics, not utopia.

In the meantime you make criminals of citizens that were abiding by the law. Which is really the point, because they don't vote democrat, so who cares, right?
 
/eyeroll

So all those guns running around that are illegal for people to possess but they still carry them and use them for crime, I guess that's just happenstance, right?

If someone is willing to commit murder a gun law violation isn't going to bother them.
In the meantime you make criminals of citizens that were abiding by the law. Which is really the point, because they don't vote democrat, so who cares, right?
I wouldn't make owning any gun illegal, I would only regulate your ability to buy one and you could keep all the guns you already have.
 
I wouldn't make owning any gun illegal, I would only regulate your ability to buy one and you could keep all the guns you already have.
That is mighty big of you, but the ability of government to regulate arms, of any kind, is already prohibited. Or are you not able to grasp the meaning of "shall not be infringed?"
 
Back
Top Bottom