Yes, but they just happened to be passed the same year. The Brady act is what eventually gave us the NICS.
Even if true, how is this meaningful? Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , 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. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
The Democrats have had four chances, and muffed it every time. It doesn't fit their definition of "assault weapon".
Since the Continental Congress was introduced to the Belton repeating flintlock by its inventor in 1776, and actually ordered 100 prototypes, they surely knew that repeating firearms were feasible. They didn't know about hard drives and cell phones, so by your logic the 1st and 4th Amendments shouldn't cover those?
I am responding to those who claim that advanced weapons were well known and available to the founders... and therefore were explicitly considered in writing the second. If we agree that is not true, let’s celebrate our agreement
They don't cover those. The rules have to be adapted and interpreted to cover such things. They also didn't cover fully automatic weapons. Whose bans were an interpretation only. But they were banned. And it was constitutional.
I am not familiar with the belt on But it is clear that even at the start of the civil war, the common weapons were primitive by today’s standard Btw, the point I have been making is not what the law should be... only saying that the founders had no way to comprehend, or endorse the pervasive public availability of advanced weapons that are now common place and relatively inexpensive
It certainly is not true that they weren't aware of possible advances in firearm technology. What else do you want to talk about?
It also wasn't written with the intent that ordinary citizens would have access to photocopiers, machine powered printing presses, the internet, The LDS church and a lot of other inventions. I have little doubt that the Founders would not object to private citizens owning the same weapons that a common infantry soldier possesses. If you think otherwise, work to get the 2nd amendment changed.
Such cannot be done, because the above rifle does not meet the legal definition of being a so-called "assault weapon" due to lacking the necessary cosmetic features to be defined as such. The only way to modify the law to accomplish such, would be to redefine so-called "assault weapons" as being any semi-automatic firearm. Such a standard would never pass constitutional scrutiny.
Cease posting citations related to the Armalite AR-15, it has no relevance to the discussion. The Armalite AR-15 is not, never has been, and never will be, the same as the AR-15 that is currently on the private market. That AR-15, the actual and true AR-15, has its own article on the wikipedia site. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_AR-15 Do not post the Armalite article any further, unless you are intentionally engaging in intellectual dishonesty with no regard for facts.
I will agree that they were equally aware of possible firearm advanced as they were about the possibility of the internet
Given the pre-ratification existence of Pepperbox revolver, the superposed musket, the Girandoni rifle, the Puckle gun and the Belton 20 shot repeating flintlock, which is certainly more advanced than the Brown Bess, and which Congress was so aware of they ordered 100 units, your claim is not only specious it indicates that you are not paying attention.
I never said that they didn't just take the power. They shoot unarmed civilians all the time, too. They take cash from people without due process. Government does a lot they aren't supposed to.
More than 90 MILLION gun owners 300 MILLION firearms. 1.4 MILLION people in the U.S. armed forces You can't live in that tank forever Drop a bomb on your neighborhood to get a few guys with ARs? "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
Every federal agent, the names of everyone in their family, their home address, every soldier living off post, the names of everyone in their family; all those are stored in a database somewhere. How eager will they be to persecute their fellow citizens if that information is made public knowledge?
