So I had an interesting encounter in class. I'm taking Constitutional law, and we were reading the court opinions on the 2010 MacDonald v. Chicago case when a student, giving his view on one of the justices opinions was noting that the justice was making an orientalist argument about the 2nd amendment right and said, "which I don't get, because that would only mean muskets." I've heard this kind of a silly argument before, and as almost a knee-jerk reaction I said, "well freedom of the press isn't just for the printing press, it covers the internet too. And your freedom of speech extends to TV ads and the internet." I maybe should have made my point more directly, that the orientalist argument is not and never was that rights only extend to tech of the time (that was my point, that the other student was making a straw man to criticize), but I think my points stand. Has anyone ever encountered these silly arguments before, beyond Piers Morgan?
Yes, Unfortunately I have seen that very debate several times on this forum. You are of course correct. It's absurd to think the framers were oblivious to the fact that weapons technology would continue to evolve. I also believe this is why the term "arms" is used instead of something more specific.
exactly. why would they use a broad term like "arms" if they have a narrow meaning like "speech"? And why would they use a broad term like "press" if they meant something narrow like, "newspapers printed in cities currently existing"?
If they ever say "where in the constitution does it say you can have an AR-15?" respond with "right next to where it says musket." lol
OK, so I get that arguing that the constitution limits the right to bear arms to muzzle loading flintlocks, because that is what it meant at the time is pretty weak tea. So then why is it constitutional to ban automatic arms? Chemical Arms? Nuclear Arms? What if the sale of arms was limited to smart guns? There are those that claim the 2nd Amendment was to make sure the people had the means to overthrow the government. But the people don't own very much that could put a dent in the government's modern well equipped and well trained military. What can you own legally that could take out an armored vehicle? These "militias" would only fair slightly better with their "real" guns than if they used their paint ball guns against a real military.
The Founders had no gun control laws---for any man-portable weapon. Many of the same Founders who wrote the Constitution stated just a few years later that the Militia (the people) were to have muskets (long arms) AND pistols. They even allowed Class III type weapons like cannons. These are destructive devices that any citizen could have been allowed to own. http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm Looks like our 21st Century troops still have their hands full in Iraq and A-Stan with simple people using simple rifles and bombs. In a societal collapse, modern super weapons like jets and tanks would soon break down and run out of fuel without proper logistics.
The only thing that are not allowed are explosive devices, bombs, rockets, explosive cannon rounds, and for good reason. Explosives are dangerous for others if left unattended and deteriorate and special storage facilities are usually required, away from civilization. Guns, Cannons, ect. pose no problem while stored. - - - Updated - - - Nuclear weapons are not arms in the context of the time which basically means small arms carried by individuals. Explosives are not covered as "small arms".
What your really trying to say is you'd be happy to have the military use all it's force to disarm the populace. Why not just be honest with us and yourself? So, do you also believe some pilot will drop napalm on his own family and neighborhood simply because you wish to disarm the citizenry?
The old Nuke Strawman Argument. At least you could learn the terminology. Class is now in session. Every terrible weapon of the soldier. Nukes may be a terrible weapon of a country ( granted they are ) but soldiers ( at least in my day, admittedly 55 years ago ) did not go into battle carrying nukes. Do they now? I think not, though I may be wrong. A problem with your attempt at the absurd, ( and you did a pretty fair job of it ) is the size and the cost. By all means if you have the means of storage and the gazillions of dollars to acquire one, then buy two- you could crap on one and cover it with the other. The same goes for an M1A Abrams and F-16. It would be pretty cool to park either one or even both on your front lawn, but the special electronics and ammo may be somewhat restricted and hard to get. Every terrible weapon of the soldier is my birthright, your birthright, and even Obama's birthright. ( presuming he and you are citizens of the USA ) Few men, Superman and Captain Marvel excluded of course, can carry heavy ordnance into combat. I served between wars, so I can not speak with authority, I did carry a Browning 30 caliber air cooled during bivouac week while in Basic. That was somewhat of a chore ( I am but a mere mortal ) up and down the foothills of the Rockies, but we had a blast. ( figuratively less panties get twisted by some )
Other nations and factions have survived the odds of a superior military. Our own nation defeated the British Empire, even being out manned, trained, and out gunned. The French resisted Nazi occupation, and The Vietcong and Al Qaeda survived our modern military. It is not a matter of who has the bigger guns, its a matter of your strategy to combat it. Considering that until 1937, even a 10 year old could buy a Maxim machine gun and no mass school shootings occurred before then. It is not guns or video games or media. It is the mentally ill who do these things.
We defeated the British, with French weapons, French military advisors, French troops and the French Navy....although that part is not emphasized in the history books. The communists organized a resistance in France, against a foreign invader, and the Viet Cong received military materials from state sponsors in a battle against a foreign invader. Iraq succeeded in getting the US (a foreign invader) to leave, in Afghanistan the Taliban has survived 10 years of battle against a foreign invader. Domestic unrest against a domestic government is harder to sustain.
I think your ignoring the sheer numbers. I think a conservative estimate would be around 100 million well armed citizens. And I think you would find it made-up of Hunters/trackers, retired police, FBI, special forces and indeed military. We also have nearly a half million registered machine guns, and something like 2 million destructive devices. With an active duty military of around 2.5 million, large portion of that deployed to different corners of the globe. Seriously, what standing army wouldn't (*)(*)(*)(*) they're pants..? And that's IF our entire armed forces somehow went along with fighting brothers, sisters, families and friends.
"arms" has a far more narrow meaning that you likely understand. The "Press" was not only newspapers because there were independent printers who printed pamphlets like "Common Sense". - - - Updated - - - That's because it's only partially true. We had Polish, German and French military advisors because they all opposed the British. The French were not even the Colonialists first allies.
Most of those well armed citizens would be shooting at the rebels, alongside the police and the military, we are so far from a revolution that could succeed it isn't even a remote consideration.
Some colonial states had laws prohibiting slaves from possessing a gun. I think Virginia had an exception that the slave could possess a firearm with the Master's permission but only if it was being used to put down any rebelling Indians
The Polish and German advisors came to us through France. France was a key financier of the Revolution. It was the French Navy that was decisive at Yorktown. And here is the point about the constitution, it's just a document that can be changed. What is really important is the culture, we have just seen a cultural shift, and suddenly after thousands of years, same sex marriage is legal in a number of states, and that number seems to grow every couple of months. The constitution didn't change, the culture did, and suddenly judges all over the country are finding the right to gay marriage that apparently has been in the constitution for over a hundred years, undiscovered, and within a few decades same sex marriage goes from being a dream of a few, to the law in 50 states. When the culture decides that gun ownership should be severely restricted, it will be, and it won't take long, a couple of decades to bring the gun situation to where it is in most of the civilized world.
Of course the law was written for Free Persons--- Citizens, not slaves, not illegal aliens or the Native Americans (who not only had slaves themselves, but also had no concept of civil rights).
Of course then you are admitting you were wrong when you said that "The Founders had no gun control laws", and since you apparently knew this, one could fairly construe your statement as being intentionally deceptive?
There is a slight difference, but first let me say this. When Justices FIND hidden meanings in the Constitution, they are, in effect making law, which according to the same Constitution, is reserved for the Congress alone. You are correct in stating the Constitution can be changed, however, it is not SCOTUS's duty to do so. It is only SCOTUS's place to interpret federal law unless state law is in conflict with the Constitution. The decisions, for instance, in Brown, Roe, Kelo, etc, were actually intended by the Founders to be Law of a Case and never the Law of the Land. That leads me to this. Just as there has been no revolt against the general government for bad decisions in Roe, Brown, Kelo, etc, there will be none against making, as much as it is against the fundamental precepts of life, queers marrying queers the law. Deny the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, and just possibly 90 million American gun owners may show you exactly what the culture is and can be all about. And well they should.
You miss the point, the Culture decided same sex marriage was OK, and suddenly, and over a decade or two it becomes legal in 50 states. If the Culture decides to restrict firearms, it will happen. And the opposition will be that small group that is the residue of the old culture. If the culture decides to restrict gun culture people will get rid of their guns voluntarily, because they will see guns as something that is a health hazard to have in your house, which it undoubtedly is.
that post was so vague and inspecific as to mean "nut uh", to which I say, "nut uh." Please be more specific. The culture decided so and did so constitutionally with gay marriage. 10th amendment (at least in states like MN, VT, ME etc.). I'm just waiting on them to do it constitutionally through the rest of the states. Even if the state shouldn't give a rat's arse who is getting married, there is no constitutional right to marriage.
A few did, the major contributors did not. Pulaski, Von Steuben, Rosenthal, Frederick William all had nothing to do with France. Frederick II of Germany was an early supporter of the Revolution in Germany fostered direct trade with the colonies allowing American flagged vessels access to German and Prussian ports and many Germans came, enlisted and stayed. The French's financial support was directly to counter the British as was the support of the French Navy. The point of the US Constitution is that it defines a government, the US Federal government. The Constitution doesn't have to change since it says what it says, what does have to change is how it is applied in society. Gay marriage is only an issue today, because of the fact that laws are passed which discriminate against gays, just like laws discriminated against Blacks, Jews, Italians, Chinese, Irish, etc in the past. The Constitution is anti-discrimination, society has never been. - - - Updated - - - You've prove my point.
