Second Amendment is from 1789. Thus the second amendment only applies to Muskets.

[The Stars Tremble]

Second Amendment is from 1789. Thus the second amendment only applies to Muskets.

First Amendment is also from 1789. Thus the first amendment only applies to verbal speech and newspapers.

You can still use a bullhorn though

 

[IQ57]

When they said that to stand up to an army. In the 18th century, muskets were enough for that. But modern technology has made the 2A obsolete in the modern world. Just ask the Ukrainians if shotguns and AR15s are enough against a modern army.

The weapons being sent to Ukraine and why they may not be enough

The arms Ukraine receives will be vital to the outcome of the war, but will it get the influx of heavy weapons it needs?

www.aljazeera.com

Wow, just wow.

I can’t even imagine you just went there, but you did.

Using Ukraine as an example of the 2A being obsolete.

 

[ataraxia]

Wow, just wow.

I can’t even imagine you just went there, but you did.

Using Ukraine as an example of the 2A being obsolete.

Huh? Not sure where all this shock is coming from. What's wrong with using Ukraine as a good example of how something that worked well back with 18th century technology doesn't really work with 21st century technology?

 

[element94]

As my constitutional law friend told me- The Second Amendment is what the 9 people on the SC say it is. when the LW gets the majority they #CRAVE#, you can expect there won't even be a pretense of adhering to the Constitution, and you'll get the superlegislators you want.

You mean like it is now?

 

[mrjurrs]

Bullet was invented in 1847. Second Amendment is from 1789. Thus the second amendment only applies to Muskets.

The military reserves = our standing militia = don't need violent organizations acting as a militia

I wish.

 

[tshade]

Bullet was invented in 1847. Second Amendment is from 1789. Thus the second amendment only applies to Muskets.

The military reserves = our standing militia = don't need violent organizations acting as a militia

well, no-------you assume the Founders were short-sighted

 

[Bear5131]

Bullet was invented in 1847. Second Amendment is from 1789. Thus the second amendment only applies to Muskets.

The military reserves = our standing militia = don't need violent organizations acting as a militia

Same thread different day


The Puckle gun was patented in 1718 by inventor James Puckle. The original patent, found here, gives this description for the gun: A portable gun or machine called a defence, thatt discharges soe often and soe many bullets, and can be soe quickly loaden as renders it next to impossible to cary any ship by boarding.May 11, 2021

https://thethermidor.com › the-puckl...

The Puckle Gun & 2 Other Guns that Existed in 1776​

 

[ataraxia]

The military reserves = our standing militia = don't need violent organizations acting as a militia

Yes, I think they are confusing the 18th century concept of a militia with a lawless vigilante group.

 

[ataraxia]

well, no-------you assume the Founders were short-sighted

No- just dealing with very different technology. Technology is always a highly unpredictable disruptor.

 

[ataraxia]

Same thread different day


The Puckle gun was patented in 1718 by inventor James Puckle. The original patent, found here, gives this description for the gun: A portable gun or machine called a defence, thatt discharges soe often and soe many bullets, and can be soe quickly loaden as renders it next to impossible to cary any ship by boarding.May 11, 2021
View attachment 67396865
https://thethermidor.com › the-puckl...

The Puckle Gun & 2 Other Guns that Existed in 1776​

Then Puckle guns would be just fine. You can knock yourself out and get as many puckle guns as you want. I would be totally OK with that. I am a true originalist.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

When they said that to stand up to an army. In the 18th century, muskets were enough for that. But modern technology has made the 2A obsolete in the modern world. Just ask the Ukrainians if shotguns and AR15s are enough against a modern army.

The weapons being sent to Ukraine and why they may not be enough

The arms Ukraine receives will be vital to the outcome of the war, but will it get the influx of heavy weapons it needs?

www.aljazeera.com

So they are not weapons of war?

 

[ataraxia]

So they are not weapons of war?

AR15s by themselves are nowhere near enough to stand up to a modern army. But they are way too much for any legitimate civilian use for self defense. So they're basically the worst of both worlds.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Where does it say that in the first amendment?

If you look carefully, it's written right next to the part of the Constitution that says "bear arms" only refers to arms in common use in 1789.

 

[The Old Soul]

Muskets or bullets or militia or atom bombs - the fact still remains that our obsession with guns is a runaway trainwreck and needs fixed; it does not fit modern society. Guns, like suicide, are a permanent solution to a temporary problem for those who die by the lead sandwich.

 

[NWRatCon]

Bullet was invented in 1847. Second Amendment is from 1789. Thus the second amendment only applies to Muskets.

The military reserves = our standing militia = don't need violent organizations acting as a militia

What, are you an originalist?!

 

[NWRatCon]

That was the technology that was available at the time, and that's what they were referring to. Aren't you an originalist?

It all depends on whose ox is gored. It's a very flexible position.

 

[NWRatCon]

Huh? Not sure where all this shock is coming from. What's wrong with using Ukraine as a good example of how something that worked well back with 18th century technology doesn't really work with 21st century technology?

Wait, you're expecting consistency and logic?

 

[Lutherf]

That was the technology that was available at the time, and that's what they were referring to. Aren't you an originalist?

I am an originalist!! Thanks for noticing.

Out of curiosity, does the 2A speak of a "right to keep and bear arms" or does it speak of a a "right to keep and bear arms commonly available today but not arms that might be created in the future"?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

AR15s by themselves are nowhere near enough to stand up to a modern army. But they are way too much for any legitimate civilian use for self defense. So they're basically the worst of both worlds.

Why does it need to be for self defence?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

You mean like it is now?

Yeah. Basically, the Democrats can't ****ing acknowledge that the Second Amendment is really a part of the Constitution, and it's the only part of the Constitution that the GOP understands. Because, fundamentally, neither party wants to admit that the reason we have Constitutional rights is to protect all of us from all of them.

The United States government is acting consistently in violation of the legal document that defines it, and is thus illegitimate. I used to believe I could do something about that, but eventually I realized that everyone-- every. single. person.-- talking about replacing our unconstitutional government wanted to replace it with something even worse, even less constitutional.

But... you know what? If I wasn't going to give up my guns in the Clinton administration, wasn't going to give up my guns in the Bush administration, wasn't going to give them up in the Obama administration... I am sure as **** not going to give them up after 20 JAN 2017 and 06 JAN 2021. And seriously, any "liberal" and any other minority who's giving up their guns in this country, right now, instead of buying more and taking them fishing is out of their goddamned minds..

 

[ataraxia]

Why does it need to be for self defence?

So it's no good for self-defense, and no good against a modern army. But it has proven to be a potentially highly dangerous tool when left unregulated in civil society, like any other highly dangerous tool.

All dangerous tools are highly regulated. Not sure why this should be different. It serves no legitimate purpose and therefore not worth being left completely unregulated. It's like removing the concept of any cars not being street legal. You can guarantee bad things are going to happen.

 

[ataraxia]

Yeah. Basically, the Democrats can't ****ing acknowledge that the Second Amendment is really a part of the Constitution, and it's the only part of the Constitution that the GOP understands. Because, fundamentally, neither party wants to admit that the reason we have Constitutional rights is to protect all of us from all of them.

The United States government is acting consistently in violation of the legal document that defines it, and is thus illegitimate. I used to believe I could do something about that, but eventually I realized that everyone-- every. single. person.-- talking about replacing our unconstitutional government wanted to replace it with something even worse, even less constitutional.

But... you know what? If I wasn't going to give up my guns in the Clinton administration, wasn't going to give up my guns in the Bush administration, wasn't going to give them up in the Obama administration... I am sure as **** not going to give them up after 20 JAN 2017 and 06 JAN 2021. And seriously, any "liberal" and any other minority who's giving up their guns in this country, right now, instead of buying more and taking them fishing is out of their goddamned minds..

All you need for that, if you are feeling that insecure, is a small handgun.

 

[ataraxia]

I am an originalist!! Thanks for noticing.

Out of curiosity, does the 2A speak of a "right to keep and bear arms" or does it speak of a a "right to keep and bear arms commonly available today but not arms that might be created in the future"?

Back then, weapons technology had not really changed in over 3 centuries. You have to remember this was before the industrial revolution. The idea of technologic progress was just not even a serious thing back then.

 

[Bear5131]

AR15s by themselves are nowhere near enough to stand up to a modern army. But they are way too much for any legitimate civilian use for self defense. So they're basically the worst of both worlds.

They are good enough to stand up to the BLM and rangers

 

[The Stars Tremble]

“therefore”

Oh jeez, not this again.

Where does it say that in the first amendment?

It says "speech." They didn't have radio or television then, so speech means only what comes out of a person's mouth. And "the press" means anything printed on paper. Books, leaflets, newspapers.

The megaphone (or "bullhorn") had however been invented, so you can use that.

The argument is a "reductio ad absurdum" and what's absurd is constitutional literalism. You have to at least consider the intent of the authors (this is called "originalism" I believe) and if you really want to do it right, you have to consider the vast bulk of precedent that SCOTUS and lesser courts have written.

In case you're confused, I'm on the side of pro-gunners this time. Literalism is ignorant rubbish.