“The Founders Couldn’t Have Imagined Assault Rifles,” She Blogged

And again;

Cesare Beccaria:
1764

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction.

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty--so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator--and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?

Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve to rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree. "

_____________

References
Cesare Beccaria, An Essay on Crimes and Punishments

The founding Fathers were of like mind when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

 

Sure I do. It's you that lack the evidence. you ask me to provide evidence and I'll post a link backing up my claim. Can't say the same for you.

 

Dunno, old George was pretty smart, and today's smart phones are quite simple to use, I am sure if I was given the task of explaining it to him, I could, however, a cell phone without an available network, and a way to charge it is simply a miscellaneous chunk of useless plastic.

 

Sure, the dems will argue that no doubt. If the dems ever get a stacked SCOTUS they will rule that we are only allowed muzzle loaders. But the militia mention in the 2A deems we should have the best weapons possible to defend America's freedom...and that is not muzzle loaders.

Look what China is doing taking away term limits. That is what the dems are hoping for in the US...perpetual dem rule. On NPR this morning they were already discussing how to repeal the 2A.

 

The 2nd is very specific concerning the right to bear arms and deals with militia.
"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."
Neither Militia or a right to bear arms is infringed if a specific weapon type is outlawed. We have no right to missiles, bombs, tanks or RPG's which are all arms.

 

According to US v Miller, the Second Amendment protects firearms "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a militia". You're seeking to ban the very firearm that most aptly meets that definition.

Banning any firearm is an infringement.

"The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (200, and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010)"

Caetano v Massachusetts.

 

You realize the guys who wrote the magna carta were simply inbred landed gentry who got uppity against the king because THEY considered themselves more special than the regular plebs?
I'd say the non inbred condition of the free men who penned the writings and philosophy enshrined in the constitution makes them a bit better than the Magna Carta's authors.
Also: The constitution is used, still, as a template for organized liberty all over the world. The federal system it creates is likewise imitated.
How many fuedal systems are still around? (not GB doesn't even really count anymore)

 

The argument is a cogent one as the Founding Fathers were educated for the times and never envisioned the invention of modern firearms. They were also very young and in their 20's. What they envisioned is irrelevant to what they intended and it sure as hell wasn't what we have today. I support the right to own firearms and the second amendment didn't provide for ownership of any type of weapon that you choose. Some limitations are reasonable and logical.

 

The founders couldn't have known about technology improving, therefore protection only applies to tech in use at the time of the founding.
He said... typing on an internet forum as protected political speech..

 

So much failure. In 1777 John Belton offered a flintlock capable of "sixteen or twenty [balls], in sixteen, ten, or five seconds of time" to our Continental Congress, who actually placed an order for 100 of them. There were 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. The average age was 44, and only about a dozen were under 35.

The Second Amendment doesn't provide anything. It prevents government restriction of private arms.

 

The 2nd protects all "bearable arms".
So, should you want to ban possession of something, you need to show it is not a "bearable arm" as the term is used.

 

The above mentioned ordnance does not meet the definition of "arms" with regard to being either man-portable, or part of general issue equipment that is issued on each and every mission.

 

I see...so portable lethality and military issue are now a 2nd amendment stipulation?

 

The ordnance mentioned by yourself is not part of any general issue equipment.

 

True, these are specialized weapons issued within unique mission parameters. Just as the M4 was meant to be until copied and placed on sale to the general public.

 

The M4 postdates the AR-15 Sporter by about 30 years, and the M4 hardly has "unique mission parameters". It fulfills the same basic concept as the M1903, the M1 Garand, the M1 Caribine and the M14. It's a basic rifle, only with burst/select fire capability.

 

They also could not have envisioned the internet, the photocopier, radio/TV, Scientology, the LDS church etc. That doesn't make freedom of the press or religion any less valid.

 

And they set forward processes to do so. There is nothing stopping a constitutional amendment changing the second amendment (except of course the will of the people).

 

There is no $200 tax per round on a black powder cannon. I could buy or build one tomorrow legally. In a quick google search, I found a mortar that could shoot 16 lb bowling balls 220 yards for $150. If I had the land for it.......

 

Thanks for your opinion. I disagree.

 

Pray tell what is being referred to in the above post? How is the M4 carbine ordnance and/or equipment issued within unique mission parameters, when it is becoming the general issue longarm of the united states military? There is nothing about it that was copied and placed on sale to the general public, other than the concept of a carbine length barrel, and an adjustable shoulder stock.

 

Out of 320 million people, not including millions of visitors, one troubled youth kills students.

So out of all that, we must turn upside down our 2nd amendment, ban this or that and claim it fixed things?

What about the troubled youth? When you fix him, can we then get our guns returned?

 

Who is "We" When did you become King ?
As in the Royal plural ?
Because you surely do NOT speak for everyone......

 

You do read English do you not ?

Do you specialize in Obtuse,
Is it deliberate ?

Of course Black Powder muzzle loaders, are not classified as destructive devices or subject to such taxes.

Howsoever, the Boys .55 caliber Anti-Tank Rifle is subject to a $ 200 tax per round, hence why people converted those guns to .50 B.M.G. to avoid the pesky $ 200 Tax prr round.

That is what I was referring to, I did not think I needed to spell it out for you.

Then again, given the above results, I suppose I should have been more explicit.

 

In all fairness, he watched the cartoon version, that depicted the Founding Fathers as Young Men, in their late Teens.