4 ms·

The efficiency and power of modern weaponry far surpasses what the Founding Fathers could dream of, it's hard to fault them for not foreseeing the advancements

The efficiency and power of modern weaponry far surpasses what the Founding Fathers could dream of, it's hard to fault them for not foreseeing the advancements in weapon tech long after their deaths. I agree with you on looking outside of the US, though.

prepend 9y ago
But so does the ability to communicate. Grown a billion fold and the first amendment still stands.
GiorgioG 9y ago
This argument is so old. I’d guess you’ve never been trained to or handled a firearm. I suggest you learn about it and understand that it’s a tool like any other. “But it’s primary purpose is to kill!!!” Sure, and the primary purpose of alcohol is not to kill people, yet it causes as many deaths per year as gun-homicide. I understand, you don’t like guns, and that’s ok, nobody’s forcing you to acquire or use one, but taking away that option for law-abiding Folks doesn’t make any of us safer.
saosebastiao 9y ago
I don’t know why so many people believe the founding fathers would think differently if they saw the world of weapons today. They had just fought and won a war largely due to the ability of commoners to fight off the threat of the most powerful colonial power in the world. The second amendment was written to allow people to defend themselves collectively (hence the mention of militia) from the threat of nation states and corrupted powers, not carjackers and armed robbers. If they saw the world of weaponry today, I wouldn’t be surprised if they would interpret the second amendment to include grenade launchers and machine guns...because that is what the potential external threats (and possibly internal threats) have become. You may believe the world has changed, but I still find it short sighted to go around disarming people. The count of people killed in genocides even in the last half of the 20th century is enough to dissuade me from putting my security solely in the hands of a government. And I say that as someone who generally hates America’s obsessive gun culture.
refurb 9y ago
The efficiency and power of modern speech far surpasses what the Founding Fathers could dream of, it's hard to fault them for not foreseeing the advancements in speech technology long after their deaths. See why it's not a good idea to go down that road?
LyndsySimon 9y ago
> The efficiency and power of modern weaponry far surpasses what the Founding Fathers could dream of Nonsense. The Constitution includes provisions for hiring privateers to acts as an adjunct to the nation's navy. There were businessmen who owned ships bristling with cannon floating in Boston harbor - they didn't try to limit that, they made sure they could hire them to go blow stuff up if they felt the need. Also, the Austian army was using a repeating rifle with a 20-round magazine in 1780 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

prepend 9y ago

But so does the ability to communicate. Grown a billion fold and the first amendment still stands.

GiorgioG 9y ago

This argument is so old. I’d guess you’ve never been trained to or handled a firearm. I suggest you learn about it and understand that it’s a tool like any other. “But it’s primary purpose is to kill!!!” Sure, and the primary purpose of alcohol is not to kill people, yet it causes as many deaths per year as gun-homicide. I understand, you don’t like guns, and that’s ok, nobody’s forcing you to acquire or use one, but taking away that option for law-abiding Folks doesn’t make any of us safer.

saosebastiao 9y ago

I don’t know why so many people believe the founding fathers would think differently if they saw the world of weapons today. They had just fought and won a war largely due to the ability of commoners to fight off the threat of the most powerful colonial power in the world. The second amendment was written to allow people to defend themselves collectively (hence the mention of militia) from the threat of nation states and corrupted powers, not carjackers and armed robbers. If they saw the world of weaponry today, I wouldn’t be surprised if they would interpret the second amendment to include grenade launchers and machine guns...because that is what the potential external threats (and possibly internal threats) have become. You may believe the world has changed, but I still find it short sighted to go around disarming people. The count of people killed in genocides even in the last half of the 20th century is enough to dissuade me from putting my security solely in the hands of a government. And I say that as someone who generally hates America’s obsessive gun culture.

refurb 9y ago

The efficiency and power of modern speech far surpasses what the Founding Fathers could dream of, it's hard to fault them for not foreseeing the advancements in speech technology long after their deaths. See why it's not a good idea to go down that road?

LyndsySimon 9y ago

> The efficiency and power of modern weaponry far surpasses what the Founding Fathers could dream of Nonsense. The Constitution includes provisions for hiring privateers to acts as an adjunct to the nation's navy. There were businessmen who owned ships bristling with cannon floating in Boston harbor - they didn't try to limit that, they made sure they could hire them to go blow stuff up if they felt the need. Also, the Austian army was using a repeating rifle with a 20-round magazine in 1780 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle