The 2nd Amendment was written when guns held one bullet.

[Cattledog]

Think about that.

[Baconator]

1. The 1st was written in the age of quill and parchment...

What's the follow-on thought?

[boston bean]

2. I have one after reading your mean, glib, offensive post.

[Baconator]

4. Shoot...

[BeyondGeography]

10. If your argument is words are more powerful because of today's delivery systems

maybe you can explain how the French and American revolutions happened without Facebook and Twitter.

[Hoyt]

11. Common response from gun-strokers around these parts.

[Baconator]

12. Which part did you find to be factually incorrect...?

I suspect it's a common answer because it's the obvious response to a fallacious argument like that in the OP.

[mopinko]

47. keep diggin buddy.

[Baconator]

50. Thought so...

[HAB911]

63. They love splitting hairs/semantics

[Hoyt]

66. Exactly. Gunners like to play the nomenclature game. And, if you are not a gun-stroker,

they like to say you don't no enough about guns to opine on the matter. Personally, I think they have their heads so far up their gun barrels, they can't see the problem they are helping create.

[yodermon]

30. ... And since the age of quills, we have enacted many restrictions on the 1st .

Your point?

[GulfCoast66]

35. Such as?

Fact is the 1st is way broader than in the quill and ink days now including expression as well.

Do not take this as a comment on the gun thing. I just like accuracy on DU. The first has never been broader than it is today.

[shanny]

54. there's a ton of restrictions on free speech

such as limits or bans on incitement, fighting words, child porn, and false statements of fact...lots more

look it up. even wiki knows about it

[GulfCoast66]

57. Now you are moving the goal line.

I never suggested there were no limits on the first amendment. It was not a matter of discussion until your last point.

You special stated that we have added many restrictions on the 1st since the enactment. I disagreed and stated that the first is way more broad than when the constitution was enacted.

The 2nd amendment allows tons of restrictions on gun ownership. What is lacking is political will.

Have a nice evening.

[shanny]

59. your specific assertion was that the first is "way more broad"

than when first enacted. that's a load of hooey. it is not "more broad" but less. it has not been broadened, it has been restricted, in certain areas.

of course, i am willing to be educated on this subject, so please, cite the case law where the First has been broadened since enacted.

also, too, how does one "move the goal line" when one has made a grand total of one statement on the subject? do tell.

[hardluck]

61. Start with

Brandenburg v Ohio and it’s effect on prior 1st amendment cases such as Schenck v US. The 1st amendment is undisputedly interpreted broader now than 100 years ago, and when it was first written. That should at least give you a start.

I’m going to bed but I’m sure other posters can pick up the torch to provide you more cases on other areas of 1st amendment jurisprudence that has expanded 1st amendment protections.

[rufus dog]

43. It also said "well regulated"

Please define your understanding

[mopinko]

48. um. the printing press had long since been invented.

[lapfog_1]

3. and reloading was a multi-step minute or so proposition

if someone was attacking... they could be ready in a minute, hence the term.

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

5. I ask this about once a year at the hunting lodge

"Do you think the 2nd amendment would be the same if authors had weapons of today?

They look at me as if I were an alien.

[zipplewrath]

16. Way off topic but

If you look at the first 10 amendments, many of them would be written vastly different today. The first would probably be split up into at least two, it not three different declarations. And it is easy to tell that the whole presidential election/succession thing has probably resulted in more amendments than anything else. I suspect the 3rd amendment wouldn't even be there at all. I also suspect that there would be vastly more attention paid to the whole "states versus federal rights" issue.

As to the 2nd. I would suggest that it would be vastly different today. The whole "militia" concept is really dead and was within about 10 years of the constitution. It would be written with an eye towards "national guard" kinds of structures with states able to maintain their own "armies". There would potentially be a "personal ownership of weapons" piece, but I'd bet ya it would include clauses to allow significant regulation on who could own what, at least at the state level.

[jmowreader]

34. The Third Amendment made sense at the time and is harmless today

The British Army had the nasty habit of commandeering people's houses any time they wanted. Our new nation would not be like that.

The Bill of Rights was the Founders' attempt to correct all the wrongs and perceived wrongs of the Crown...who would throw your butt in jail for speaking out against the King, who liked to grab guns and take over people's houses, to throw people in gaol without charge and forget about them...

[Kingofalldems]

6. NRA apologists will be hard pressed after today.

[Codeine]

22. Well, since a schoolful of dead kids didn't slow them down,

I really doubt they'll find their arguments mooted by a bunch of dead hillbillies at a hillbilly music show.

They have zero shame.

[VermontKevin]

27. This.

[BannonsLiver]

23. And yet we have tortured "whataboutism" leading off responses to this OP.

[VOX]

24. This presupposes that NRA apologists have a conscience.

They don't. They are not fully human. If they were, they wouldn't be NRA apologists.

[GulfCoast66]

36. Keep dreaming. NT

[LuckyCharms]

7. And there were not hotels with 32 floors where someone could take...

a machine gun and spray-fuck hundreds of people.

[TexasBushwhacker]

8. I've heard people say that single shot weapons were state of the art

back then and therefore they should have the right to have state of the art weaponry now.

[Cattledog]

14. I guess that would mean fully automatic weapons, RPGs, etc.

[TexasBushwhacker]

18. In their minds, yes.

And I just remembered who said it: Trace Adkins.

[hack89]

9. So get Congress to change the 2A. Pretty simple solution. nt

[Bradical79]

26. Congress and State legislatures or voters

Of course it's virtually impossible all things considered.

[Lee-Lee]

13. And the 1st before one Russian with a computer and a credit card

Could buy thousands of dollars in ads pushing fake news and change election results.

And before one person with a keyboard could isntangly spread hate across the world.

[spanone]

15. K&R...

[Soxfan58]

17. And a gun

Help you feed a family.

[jmg257]

19. And everybody who chose to have one did, and it was even mandatory 'for the people'

that would be serving in the militia.

They did not trust to have large standing Armies either.


Yep - much has changed.

[DavidDvorkin]

20. More to the point, it was intended for organized millitias, not individuals.

[former9thward]

28. Not a particle of evidence in the debate over the amendments

at the time that supports that.

[DavidDvorkin]

40. The Supreme Court held that until quite recently.

[former9thward]

44. No it didn't.

It never took up that question specifically.

[hack89]

60. Let's see the case law

It is not as strong ad you think.

[ck4829]

21. There certainly is less time required to dehumanize the other

That is important.

[VOX]

25. Not only one lead ball (bullet), but muzzle-loading, smoothbore flintlock muskets.

Which meant, at most, 2-3 shots per minute. Some particularly skilled marksmen could fire up to 8 rounds per minute (this involves intensive practice, and having one's powder ready-made in packets).

[pwb]

29. And it is only one sentence long.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

[haele]

31. It was also written when firearms were expensive to purchase and maintain...

And most communities had central armories to maintain the better weapons - muskets - and the quality ammunition required to arm and train their militias, while individuals might have a shotgun if they lived in a rural area and needed it for hunting or warding off livestock.

I was friends with a blackpowder enthusiast who did "Mountain Man" recreation as a French Trapper along the Missouri - he had both replica and actual firearms that ranged from 1790's to 1840's. Learned a lot about Colonial and Post-Revolution way of living from him - and one of the things he would talk about was that in period, most people did not go around with guns on them unless they were heading out on a long trip or going out hunting. The most important thing you carried was your knife - a good midsized one with a 10 - 12 inch blade was best.
In character, he'd go around with a shotgun (unloaded in public events), his sling, and his knife. His persona had a pistol, but it was supposed to be in his pack with his bedroll and other gear, not carried on his person.

And cityfolk tended not to have firearms because they didn't feel the need for them, unless they were rich and wanted to duel. Firearms and ammunition started becoming more accessible and affordable after the Civil War.

I've loaded and shot his refurbished "pepperpot" pistol from the 1830's several times - the most common kind an American would have had at the time with the least amount of kick (and I qualified marksman on the Navy 45 cal. Colt) - the original was inaccurate as hell beyond around 15 ft.
Now, the modern replica, made with modern manufacturing processes, was much better - you could aim fairly accurately and hit your target up to about 20 yards before drift would start to take affect.

From my experience using an actual firearm from that period, unless you were a rich man who could have firearms specially made for you, what the average person could afford on their own was pretty much crap.
You were pretty much better served with a shotgun.

So, yeah - when the Founding Fathers talked about the 2nd., just from what was available in period it was pretty obvious what they were used to was community militias maintaining most of the good weaponry for the locals, with the general public only able to afford a firearm that was basically only good enough to be an occasional farm utensil.

Haele

[Crunchy Frog]

32. That's progress for you.

[TrollBuster9090]

33. They also gave us the ability to amend the Constitution, if that situation ever became unworkable.

The Founders had confidence that future generations would be responsible enough to modify that amendment if it ever became unworkable, and we clearly FAILED THE IQ TEST. The government has been taken over by the gun lobby, who makes too much money off of this, and by a bunch of crackpot citizens militia types who control the GOP primary process.

In fact, the 2nd Amendment starts with "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

The DC vs. Heller decision claimed they couldn't agree upon what the first two clauses meant, but the last clause "the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms" meant that bearing arms was a 'natural right.'

But, in fact, there is a lot of evidence as to what they meant by a well regulated militia.

Washington signed the Militia Acts of 1792, explaining that a militia is an army organized by each State, and which would fall under the control of the Federal Government. It included the 'musket mandate' which mandated that all military aged men had to buy a musket, so they could serve in their state militia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

Washington then called up the militias to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.

Clearly, the Founders did NOT intend for military grade weapons to be in the hands of the citizenry for the sake of overthrowing their own government if it became too tyrannical in their opinion. And yet...that same lie has dominated our political discourse over this for a century.

[Xolodno]

38. Right...

...a government was supposed to be removed by elections... a very alien concept at the time. Nor were there a rash of corrupt countries that were republics, primarily because there weren't any or few republics to compare. Monarchies still dominated, granted some had Parliaments.

So the whole notion that the second amendment was there to overthrow a corrupt government is hogwash.

[burnbaby]

37. and they only needed one bullet

if the person didn't die right away they would slowly die of infection or other causes due to that one bullet

[X_Digger]

39. No, it wasn't.

Hell, there were even rudimentary machine guns at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

[moondust]

41. Yes,

they certainly weren't "tools of mass murder." The people who passed the Second Amendment in December 1791 probably knew that sometimes "good people" snap, that some people are naturally a little unhinged, some may even kill someone else in a fit of rage with a knife or a musket. But the Second Amendment didn't really pose an extra risk to the public because...one bullet.

You can't seriously flood the general public with the tools of mass murder and expect everything to be okay. Duh.

Gun Stocks Soar Following Massacre in Las Vegas

[eleny]

42. And did we have a standing army yet?

I think they needed militias back then.

[SonofDonald]

45. I'm a gun owner AND a Liberal

I've talked to a lot of other gun owners and the answer to the "Well regulated militia" in normal circles is that this means the national guard, in gun nut circles it means private owners due to the fact that the national guard didn't exist when the constitution was written.

Common sense tells you that the argument from the gun nuts side is no longer applicable, they don't think so.....

This is the main issue right there, what needs to happen is that the constitution must be amended to state that the national guard is given the responsibility to be the "well regulated militia" and private ownership of assault type weapons is no longer allowed.

The real test of any attempt to stop the sales of such weapons should be just that, stop selling them, period.

Then of course the nuts will say "see, that's why they made us register our firearms so they can take them away, just like we've been saying all along".

It is a huge can of worms to open, I don't see any way to hault the killing of innocents other than to stop the sales of these killing machines and either take the ones already out there away from their owners or find another way to keep more from being killed by the weapons.

But I tell you now, if any real attempt to take these weapons away from their owners happens the blood will not stop flowing for a long time, and that's the horrible part.

Either way more will die by these weapons and their owners.

Sad but true.

[mopinko]

49. national guard, hell, the army didnt exist as we know it.

there was no standing army. washington had a hell of a time arming his soldiers. THAT is why they allowed for the militia- so that "soldiers" were responsible for bringing their own weapons.

[eleny]

65. Randy Rhodes did a segment on the militia yesterday

Last night I caught her mini freebie snip from yesterday's show. She read a portion of the 10 pages of requirements for the militia as written back then. The current twisted interpretation of the 2nd amendment sounds like an excuse for anarchists to arm themselves because of their weaponry fetish.

[eleny]

64. So we're hostage to a pack of anarchist fantasists

[linuxman]

46. Couldn't help I noticing I didn't read this on parchment, or reply with quill.

[KPN]

51. BINGO!

[randr]

52. Also at a time when "Dueling" was a gentlemans way to settle a dispute

Oh how I would like to challenge a few current asswipes to such a solution just for the chance.

[louis c]

53. "Well Regulated" is written as part of the 2nd amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.

The gun nuts always leave out the "Well Regulated Militia" part.

[jmg257]

56. Why does everyone keep saying that?? The 'well-regulated Militia' part is why the fucker had ARs.

Because even the USSC said:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Because ARs and their acoutrements are near-perfect civilian weapons related to the efficiency of a militia. And why I wonder if Miller was carrying a BAR, that automatic rifles wouldn't be so regulated.

[louis c]

58. The well regulated part gives validity

to gun laws that restrict sales, eliminate certain types of weapons, makes 'back ground checks' legal.

I helps our argument.

I don't want to ban all guns, I want to prohibit the sale and exchange of assault weapons and regulate all other guns.

[shanny]

55. muskets were pretty much state of the art at the time

but if "original intent" is an issue there is that pesky phrase about a "militia"...especially when we consider the prohibition on a STANDING ARMY. That ship has long since sailed, it is time for the 2a to go too

[lindysalsagal]

62. Great idea. Allow muskets, only. Perfect.

Seriously, I'll vote for that.