At the time the 2cd Amendment was written

[Questerr]

This is what I said.↓
https://debatepolitics.com/goto/post?id=1072821506
Now if you will note the underlined & highlighted words. Now while the FOUNDERS did know doubt envision weapons advancements I doubt they envisioned quite that much. HOWEVER if they did (and that's a big if) I don't think they would be covered. Unless of course they felt it would be cool if everyone brought their own and someone leveled both sides of a battle field. IT'S AN area weapon.

So is a cannon, and they allowed private citizens to own them.

 

[DebateChallenge]

The fact that in every society where there’s large scale warfare most people don’t join in an uprising, no matter how tyrannical you can claim one side is. They get the hell out of the country, or keep their heads down and just try and avoid attention, or live their lives the best they can and hope the fanatics stay far, far away from them. It’s just as true in the 1700s as it is today. It’s easy to declare that you’ll fight an insurgency when the only thing you know about them is watching Red Dawn. A lot harder when you are getting shot at by heavy machine guns and mortars and you can't conveniently call in air support to save your ass.

Which makes it easier to isolate and defeat them in detail.

So in the case of a tyrannical government you would want to just give up, I get it.
Im sure glad you weren't one of General Washington's advisors, not that he probably would've listened to you anyway.

Paying a couple thousand dollars to drive a tank around with supervision is not the same as “having access to it” and being able to use it in an uprising.Not to mention, of course, that tanks and armored personnel carriers are rather large and consume a rather large amount of fuel and ammunition to keep operating. Kind of hard to launch a guerrilla campaign when everyone in the tri-state area knows where your base camp is because, gee, this particular area is bringing in far more fuel than they‘d actually need. All it takes is one Hellfire and, whoops, your preciously husbanded tank is now a ball of fire, likely along with the handful of people who actually know how to operate and maintain the thing.

You did check the link out didn't you. It mentions buying and selling tanks for private ownership and it even lists tanks for sale. Its not just a website for driving around a tank with supervision.
The point is, citizens have access to much of the same heavy artillery that the military does.

The same rule applies even more so for aircraft. Military aircraft can’t be launched from any old random dirt road. You need a proper airstrip of some sort for most of them, and even when they do get up in the air their lifespan is likely measured in minutes because, gee, there’s only so many places you can launch from, and most(if not all) are going to be under military occupation due to their role as vital supply routes. That’s not even getting into the fact that finding anti-tank missiles, ammunition, and fuel is next to impossible since it’s not like the aircraft comes with them.

That depends. Airplanes, including military airplanes do require a runway if you want to get them airborne. Helicopters on the other hand do not.

Having a civilian domestic drone is far different than having a Predator drone equipped with Hellfire missiles.

If drones are a problem here's the solution.

Drone Hunters: 9 of the Most Effective Anti-Drone Technologies for Shooting Drones out of the Sky

Here are some amazing anti-drone tools to get rid of that annoying drone that keeps flying around your house.

interestingengineering.com

And developing a network capable of importing anti tank missiles and Russian 115mm tank rounds(not to mention the actual vehicles themselves) in secrecy is going to be rather difficult, even in the age of “modern communication”.

No but such a network can import other stuff.
As a matter of fact I take that back. If we were to have another civil war, as in the first civil war, many of the active military personnel will defect and fight on the side of the citizens and they will bring all their tanks, aircraft, drones, anti tank missiles, 115mm tank rounds and so forth with them and as such it will be imported in the citizen network.

The real problem is how completely clueless you all are about this.

If you want to see somebody whose clueless, look in the mirror.

 

[Bullseye]

Private individuals most definitely DID own cannons in 1788. Privately owned "warships" (they would call them "armed merchantmen") also legally existed at that time. You should educate yourself.

Of course merchantmen were armed. But that doesn't make them military warships.

Also for note: the private ownership of cannons is legal in the US now.

With proper permits.

 

[Rucker61]

Just because you think the government is “tyrannical” doesn’t give you an excuse to commit war crimes. Hell, even when the government is tyrannical it doesn’t give you an excuse to do so. The fact that gun obessives immediately jump to “murder the families of the people we don’t like” really says it all.

Yawn. Trying to make excuses for people who join groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda out of “sorrow” isn’t an argument. And considering that, again, murdering the family members of government personal doesn’t actually affect the situation on the battlefield at all, your “desperate measures” would be nothing more than the flailing of a rabid dog. And we all know what happens to those.

Where did I say anything about murder?

Who else but a tyrannical government would be using the military against its own citizens?

 

[DebateChallenge]

So in 1788, civilians were only allowed to own "certain" weapons owned by the military? Where is that in the 2nd Amendment?

Since the 2A identifies the individual right to keep and bear arms, any kind of weapon used by the military back in 1788 that could be used by an individual, by a single person, was also legal for a citizen to privately own and that's how it should be today. Whether or not weapons that take more than one person to operate should be legal for private citizens to own can be argued which is why you might argue against the ownership of tanks, many types of combat aircraft, battleships, and nuclear bombs since all those things require a team to use but any weapon that a single person uses whether it be a musket or a fully automatic M-16 should be legal for private citizens to own as per the 2A.

 

[BahamaBob]

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?

Stupid concept. Technology in guns have changed very little in comparison to everything else. They use the same basic technology they always have. They use gun powder to propel a projectile. Beyond that anyone who doesn't think a muzzle loader can be very lethal is an idiot. I hunt elk with a muzzle loader. I have brought down an 800 lb animal at 250 yards. Compare that to other technologies. Transportation went from horses to jets. Lighting went from candles to electric lights. Furnaces and air conditioners to heat and cool your home. From hand turned presses to the internet. On and on. In addition, I would venture to say that a far greater percentage of the population was killed due to gun malfunctions and accidents than have been killed in modern mass shootings.

Now if you were talking about the 1st Amendment, that would hold water. There the technology is totally different. When you compare television, radio, and the internet to what passed for mass communication in those days it is a huge difference.

 

[Questerr]

Of course merchantmen were armed. But that doesn't make them military warships.
With proper permits.

What's the difference between a 30 gun "armed merchantman" and a 30 gun "warship"?

So nuclear weapons "with proper permits"?

 

[Questerr]

Since the 2A identifies the individual right to keep and bear arms, any kind of weapon used by the military back in 1788 that could be used by an individual, by a single person, was also legal for a citizen to privately own and that's how it should be today. Whether or not weapons that take more than one person to operate should be legal for private citizens to own can be argued which is why you might argue against the ownership of tanks, many types of combat aircraft, battleships, and nuclear bombs since all those things require a team to use but any weapon that a single person uses whether it be a musket or a fully automatic M-16 should be legal for private citizens to own as per the 2A.

In 1788, the 2nd Amendment covered cannons, which require more than one person to operate. So clearly the ability to be operated by a single person cannot be part of the definitions of "arms".

 

[vegas giants]

Of course merchantmen were armed. But that doesn't make them military warships.
With proper permits.

About time you conceded

 

[Glitch]

In 1788, the 2nd Amendment covered cannons, which require more than one person to operate. So clearly the ability to be operated by a single person cannot be part of the definitions of "arms".

It was 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified. It really comes down to your interpretation of "to bear" as in "to keep and bear arms."

On one hand "to bear" can be interpreted to mean "to physically possess," or "to carry." In which case only those arms that are portable are covered by the Second Amendment.

On the other hand "to bear" can be interpreted to mean "to present," or "to own." In which case there are no restrictions to the arms covered by the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court in Heller interpreted "to keep and bear arms" to mean "to retain; not to lose" and "to have in custody." They also cite Noah Webster's dictionary from 1828, "to hold; to retain in one's power or possession."

I find the Supreme Court's interpretation to be a little on the vague side. Are they referring to physical possession or possession in the abstract, as in ownership?

 

[TurtleDude]

In 1788, the 2nd Amendment covered cannons, which require more than one person to operate. So clearly the ability to be operated by a single person cannot be part of the definitions of "arms".

the second amendment is based on the right of self defense. Arms back then meant arms that a citizen would keep and BEAR. and weapons designed to attack an area rather than an individual, are neither useful for self defense, or safe enough to be used in a civilian environment for self defense

 

[Glitch]

the second amendment is based on the right of self defense. Arms back then meant arms that a citizen would keep and BEAR. and weapons designed to attack an area rather than an individual, are neither useful for self defense, or safe enough to be used in a civilian environment for self defense

Considering we are talking about the late 18th century, pretty much every weapon in those days was designed to attack an area rather than an individual. Which is why the fired their muskets in formation and never individually. Individual targets only started showing up when they developed rifling. Rifling had been around for awhile (since the mid-16th century), but didn't really catch on in England or the Americas until the 18th century.

 

[TurtleDude]

Considering we are talking about the late 18th century, pretty much every weapon in those days was designed to attack an area rather than an individual. Which is why the fired their muskets in formation and never individually. Individual targets only started showing up when they developed rifling. Rifling had been around for awhile (since the mid-16th century), but didn't really catch on in England or the Americas until the 18th century.

true but gentlemen carried rapiers and perhaps a pistol for defense, and most had a musket or a long rifle over the fireplace for defense against "indigenous peoples"

 

[Glitch]

true but gentlemen carried rapiers and perhaps a pistol for defense, and most had a musket or a long rifle over the fireplace for defense against "indigenous peoples"

They also owned blunderbuss and volley guns. Most had the smooth bore flintlock muskets however. Which might hit a barn door at a 100 yards.

Thank goodness for the industrial age and uniform cartridges.

 

[Tigerace117]

So in the case of a tyrannical government you would want to just give up, I get it.
Im sure glad you weren't one of General Washington's advisors, not that he probably would've listened to you anyway.


You did check the link out didn't you. It mentions buying and selling tanks for private ownership and it even lists tanks for sale. Its not just a website for driving around a tank with supervision.
The point is, citizens have access to much of the same heavy artillery that the military does.


That depends. Airplanes, including military airplanes do require a runway if you want to get them airborne. Helicopters on the other hand do not.


If drones are a problem here's the solution.

Drone Hunters: 9 of the Most Effective Anti-Drone Technologies for Shooting Drones out of the Sky

Here are some amazing anti-drone tools to get rid of that annoying drone that keeps flying around your house.

interestingengineering.com

No but such a network can import other stuff.
As a matter of fact I take that back. If we were to have another civil war, as in the first civil war, many of the active military personnel will defect and fight on the side of the citizens and they will bring all their tanks, aircraft, drones, anti tank missiles, 115mm tank rounds and so forth with them and as such it will be imported in the citizen network.


If you want to see somebody whose clueless, look in the mirror.

In other words, your plan revolves around people whose families you threaten to murder defecting. ****ing brilliant

In case you missed it, none of George Washington‘s plans went “first, we mass murder all of the Loyalist non-combatants in hopes that will accomplish.....something”.

Again, having “access” to a tank is very different than actually being able to use it in combat .

So in other words a basically untested, theoretical concept which has never been used on any large scale. Good,luck with that

Helicopters are just as vulnerable as ”regular“ aircraft. More so, in fact, because they have no defense against fighter aircraft.

But hey, way to remain us that “2nd amendmeant advocates“ are just a bunch of rabid dogs eagerly awaiting the chance to murder the family members of government employees.

 

[Tigerace117]

Where did I say anything about murder?

Who else but a tyrannical government would be using the military against its own citizens?

Murdering the families of government employees— which you implied advocating— is a war crime, pure and simple. The facit that ”2nd amendment advicates“ see it as totally fine is just another reminder of how corrupt gun obsessives have become.

Gee, do you think Lincoln was a “tyrant”?

 

[Questerr]

the second amendment is based on the right of self defense. Arms back then meant arms that a citizen would keep and BEAR. and weapons designed to attack an area rather than an individual, are neither useful for self defense, or safe enough to be used in a civilian environment for self defense

At the time it was created, the 2nd Amendment covered privately owned cannons, which are area effect weapons, so clearly your argument doesn't fly.

 

[DebateChallenge]

In 1788, the 2nd Amendment covered cannons, which require more than one person to operate. So clearly the ability to be operated by a single person cannot be part of the definitions of "arms".

Its possible for a single person to operate a cannon, it might be slower than if a team operated it but its doable.

 

[TurtleDude]

At the time it was created, the 2nd Amendment covered privately owned cannons, which are area effect weapons, so clearly your argument doesn't fly.

can you find a case that supports that or some legal commentary. That the government didn't try to ban such weapons doesn't mean the 2nd covered them. More likely the tenth. The government was never given power to ban them. So your argument fails

 

[TurtleDude]

Its possible for a single person to operate a cannon, it might be slower than if a team operated it but its doable.

what gun banners fail to understand is that EVEN WITHOUT A SECOND AMENDMENT, the federal government never was given the PROPER power to ban weapons

 

[vegas giants]

Its possible for a single person to operate a cannon, it might be slower than if a team operated it but its doable.

Its possible for a single person to operate a tank

 

[vegas giants]

At the time it was created, the 2nd Amendment covered privately owned cannons, which are area effect weapons, so clearly your argument doesn't fly.

I guess these guys dont respect founders intent

 

[iliveonramen]

At the end of the day guns aren’t going anywhere. I just wish that we could somehow make guns only work on other people that own guns. Let them shoot it out and live out their little cowtown justice fantasies on each other.

 

[Questerr]

Its possible for a single person to operate a cannon, it might be slower than if a team operated it but its doable.

It's possible for a single person to operate a M777 155mm Howitzer. So that's protected by the 2nd Amendment?

A single person can arm and detonate a nuclear warhead.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Considering we are talking about the late 18th century, pretty much every weapon in those days was designed to attack an area rather than an individual. Which is why the fired their muskets in formation and never individually. Individual targets only started showing up when they developed rifling. Rifling had been around for awhile (since the mid-16th century), but didn't really catch on in England or the Americas until the 18th century.

It was the British who would fire their muskets into the air at the general direction of the enemy which wouldn't do much more than make lots of smoke and noise, some of the shots would hit some wouldn't, which would be then followed by a bayonet charge.

The Continental Army, on the other hand, used rifles that were much more accurate and they would usually pick the British off from a distance. Their shots hit their marks much more often and so their weapons were designed much more for precision shooting, not to attack an area the way the British weapons and tactics were designed to do.