5 ms·

The problem of the right to bear arms is that it was done during a time when weapons were single shot, and hard to reload. There were limits to what you could d

The problem of the right to bear arms is that it was done during a time when weapons were single shot, and hard to reload. There were limits to what you could do. Now you can classify many of these weapon as having the potential for mass killings (not very different than explosives). Should shotguns, and single shot rifles be allowed to be bought and sold freely? Sure, as they seem to fit the idea of what an weapon during the time was, and the right is in the constitution. Should rapid fire machine guns be allowed? Probably not. The battle is where do you draw the line of what is allowed and what is not.

Bromskloss 9y ago
Historical reasons aside, what is the difference between slow and fast weapons that would make one want to allow the one but not the other? As a first approximation, it would seem that any argument that could be given for allowing or disallowing either of the types would be applicable also to the other type.
- goatherders 9y ago
  There are no differences.
- SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
  Fast weapons let people do more damage in a given period of time.
- Nition 9y ago
  There are some actual productive uses for "slow" weapons. Farmers who might want to shoot predators, rabbits etc. Hunting animals for food as well if you support that.
ams6110 9y ago
At the time, they were the most sophisticated, most lethal weapons ever made. Yet they were not limited.
- Veratyr 9y ago
  Yes, at the time they were relatively powerful, however they were still weak in an absolute sense. One person misusing a musket could not have slaughtered a small town's worth of people. The right to bear a weapon that can't do a devastating amount of harm without others to support you is different to the right to bear a weapon that can. If you disagree, let me know when your campaign to amend the constitution to permit the production, ownership and use of nuclear weapons is ready.
pandaman 9y ago
>The problem of the right to bear arms is that it was done during a time when weapons were single shot, and hard to reload. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
topmonk 9y ago
> Now you can classify many of these weapon as having the potential for mass killings (not very different than explosives). Explosives could have been made the time the constitution was written by using gun powder. Weapons being as powerful as explosives isn't itself a good reason in itself to ban them. But otherwise I think you're right. The right to bear arms was to allow the populace to protect themselves against the state. Any kind of weapon that can provide a great deal of damage in mass shootings, and could reasonably be replaced by another safer weapon and still give the populace the ability to protect themselves from the state, should be banned.
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  Although an explosive, black powder (i.e. old timey gunpowder) is not a high explosive. It generates more gas than actual concussive force, so it generally only works well when enclosed in a vessel like the barrel of a musket or a cannon. On its own it isn't actually a very useful explosive. You couldn't use it for mining, unlike dynamite (made from nitroglycerine). You could set fire to a pile of gunpowder and stand nearby, and you'd be fine. This is why you can buy big bags of black powder easily, but you can't buy high explosives without all sorts of licences and permits.
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
Note that at the time, private citizens owned weapons up to and including cannons (at least on ships.) So what was allowed at the time? Everything. There were no weapons bigger than cannons at the time.

Bromskloss 9y ago

Historical reasons aside, what is the difference between slow and fast weapons that would make one want to allow the one but not the other? As a first approximation, it would seem that any argument that could be given for allowing or disallowing either of the types would be applicable also to the other type.

goatherders 9y ago
There are no differences.
SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
Fast weapons let people do more damage in a given period of time.
Nition 9y ago
There are some actual productive uses for "slow" weapons. Farmers who might want to shoot predators, rabbits etc. Hunting animals for food as well if you support that.

ams6110 9y ago

At the time, they were the most sophisticated, most lethal weapons ever made. Yet they were not limited.

Veratyr 9y ago
Yes, at the time they were relatively powerful, however they were still weak in an absolute sense. One person misusing a musket could not have slaughtered a small town's worth of people. The right to bear a weapon that can't do a devastating amount of harm without others to support you is different to the right to bear a weapon that can. If you disagree, let me know when your campaign to amend the constitution to permit the production, ownership and use of nuclear weapons is ready.

pandaman 9y ago

>The problem of the right to bear arms is that it was done during a time when weapons were single shot, and hard to reload. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

topmonk 9y ago

> Now you can classify many of these weapon as having the potential for mass killings (not very different than explosives). Explosives could have been made the time the constitution was written by using gun powder. Weapons being as powerful as explosives isn't itself a good reason in itself to ban them. But otherwise I think you're right. The right to bear arms was to allow the populace to protect themselves against the state. Any kind of weapon that can provide a great deal of damage in mass shootings, and could reasonably be replaced by another safer weapon and still give the populace the ability to protect themselves from the state, should be banned.

toomanybeersies 9y ago
Although an explosive, black powder (i.e. old timey gunpowder) is not a high explosive. It generates more gas than actual concussive force, so it generally only works well when enclosed in a vessel like the barrel of a musket or a cannon. On its own it isn't actually a very useful explosive. You couldn't use it for mining, unlike dynamite (made from nitroglycerine). You could set fire to a pile of gunpowder and stand nearby, and you'd be fine. This is why you can buy big bags of black powder easily, but you can't buy high explosives without all sorts of licences and permits.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

Note that at the time, private citizens owned weapons up to and including cannons (at least on ships.) So what was allowed at the time? Everything. There were no weapons bigger than cannons at the time.