5 ms·

I'm not OP, but it seems to be an apt (and well written) analogy to the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution, which grants: "A well regulated Militia, being ne

by hluska 9y ago

I'm not OP, but it seems to be an apt (and well written) analogy to the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution, which grants: "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." The 2nd amendment was written when muskets were state of the art and assaukt weapons like AR-15s were almost beyond belief.

mamon 9y ago
So, the logical conclusion would be that every citizen has the right to privately own state of the art nuclear missiles?
- s2g 9y ago
  Yes, absolutely. The internet gives the average person the ability to mass disseminate information. If you want to try and use that as a metaphor then we should be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
microcolonel 9y ago
> The 2nd amendment was written when muskets were state of the art and assault weapons like AR-15s were almost beyond belief. Well, there is no definition for the term "assault weapon", and semi-automatic (edit: not semi-automatic, but self-cocking repeating, similar operation and results) weapons were well known (and not that far away from being popularized) by the time the second amendment was drafted, and by the people who were drafting it. "Arms" also encompassed things like cannons and explosive charges, which could be fitted freely to ships/properties and stored (though the latter could create a tort, if you don't take necessary precautions) by private persons, as proven in case law. It also applied to bladed, blunt, or more unconventional arms. The word "arms" is used instead of "muskets" because the right being protected is the right of the people to own arms sufficient to feasibly defend themselves (or, with a militia, defend their community), and to do so unmolested.
- hluska 9y ago
  My research might be wrong here, but I thought the 2nd amendment was passed in 1791, whereas Mannlicher didn't design the first successful semi-automatic rifle until 1885.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    There was also the Kalthoff repeater[0], which is thought to have been used in two conflicts in the mid 1600s, and designed/manufactured around that time. These were demonstrated and documented at least a hundred years before the second amendment was drafted, along with copies and demonstrations of similar mechanisms. The only question might be whether they could be considered "semi-automatic". In that sense I guess they're about as automatic as double-action revolvers. I think I'm wrong in calling them semi-automatic then, but there is little practical difference between DA revolvers and semi-automatic firearms, except that one has a chamber for each cartridge. The Kalthoff mechanism is a bit more confusing with these definitions, since it uses a single chamber, but has separate magazines for charge and bullet, but reloads, cocks, and fires through a single manual action. I should probably have said self-cocking repeaters. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater
stale2002 9y ago
> The 2nd amendment was written when muskets were state of the art and assault weapons like AR-15s were almost beyond belief. I am not sure why everyone believes this, because it is completely untrue. During the time that the constitution was written, 30 round semi automatic assault rifles had existed for around ~100 years. Yes they did. Really. Check out the Kalthoff repeater: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater It was an up to 30 round semi automatic assault rifle, invented in the 1600s. Now, it wasn't used a whole lot, because it was fairly expensive and also wasn't mass produced (Although it WAS actually used in a couple conflicts, by specialized forces!). But to claim that such things were "almost beyond belief" is ridiculous.
- s2g 9y ago
  > Within one or two seconds, it was ready to fire again. That's not comparable.
- hluska 9y ago
  I hadn't heard about the Kalthoff repeater (thanks for the link), read more and also found out about the Cookson repeater, which was also released in the 17th century. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cookson_repeater https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cookson_repeater I didn't know about those weapons and they're impressive (though very rare). But, there's still a huge leap between a Kalthoff/Cookson repeater and an AR-15. According to that weapon's manufacturer, an AR-15 has a 30 round magazine and can shoot 45 rounds a minute up to 1/3 of a mile!
  - stale2002 9y ago
    IMO, the most important innovations around guns have mostly been because of changes in bullet technology. The modern day bullets are the things that have caused the massive increase in accuracy, energy, and range. And I guess, also decreasing prices, and reliability. It is perhaps possible to make a reasoned argument around THAT, but the arguments around guns rarely reach the point beyond "ban the guns that look scary".
    - 9y ago
ufo 9y ago
I'm not sure this OP's analogy is the most apt. If I understand correctly, the legal controversy behind the 2nd amendment has more to do with the bit about "well regulated militias" than with gun technology.

by hluska 9y ago

mamon 9y ago

So, the logical conclusion would be that every citizen has the right to privately own state of the art nuclear missiles?

s2g 9y ago
Yes, absolutely. The internet gives the average person the ability to mass disseminate information. If you want to try and use that as a metaphor then we should be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

microcolonel 9y ago

> The 2nd amendment was written when muskets were state of the art and assault weapons like AR-15s were almost beyond belief. Well, there is no definition for the term "assault weapon", and semi-automatic (edit: not semi-automatic, but self-cocking repeating, similar operation and results) weapons were well known (and not that far away from being popularized) by the time the second amendment was drafted, and by the people who were drafting it. "Arms" also encompassed things like cannons and explosive charges, which could be fitted freely to ships/properties and stored (though the latter could create a tort, if you don't take necessary precautions) by private persons, as proven in case law. It also applied to bladed, blunt, or more unconventional arms. The word "arms" is used instead of "muskets" because the right being protected is the right of the people to own arms sufficient to feasibly defend themselves (or, with a militia, defend their community), and to do so unmolested.

hluska 9y ago
My research might be wrong here, but I thought the 2nd amendment was passed in 1791, whereas Mannlicher didn't design the first successful semi-automatic rifle until 1885.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- microcolonel 9y ago
  There was also the Kalthoff repeater[0], which is thought to have been used in two conflicts in the mid 1600s, and designed/manufactured around that time. These were demonstrated and documented at least a hundred years before the second amendment was drafted, along with copies and demonstrations of similar mechanisms. The only question might be whether they could be considered "semi-automatic". In that sense I guess they're about as automatic as double-action revolvers. I think I'm wrong in calling them semi-automatic then, but there is little practical difference between DA revolvers and semi-automatic firearms, except that one has a chamber for each cartridge. The Kalthoff mechanism is a bit more confusing with these definitions, since it uses a single chamber, but has separate magazines for charge and bullet, but reloads, cocks, and fires through a single manual action. I should probably have said self-cocking repeaters. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater

stale2002 9y ago

> The 2nd amendment was written when muskets were state of the art and assault weapons like AR-15s were almost beyond belief. I am not sure why everyone believes this, because it is completely untrue. During the time that the constitution was written, 30 round semi automatic assault rifles had existed for around ~100 years. Yes they did. Really. Check out the Kalthoff repeater: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater It was an up to 30 round semi automatic assault rifle, invented in the 1600s. Now, it wasn't used a whole lot, because it was fairly expensive and also wasn't mass produced (Although it WAS actually used in a couple conflicts, by specialized forces!). But to claim that such things were "almost beyond belief" is ridiculous.

s2g 9y ago
> Within one or two seconds, it was ready to fire again. That's not comparable.
hluska 9y ago
I hadn't heard about the Kalthoff repeater (thanks for the link), read more and also found out about the Cookson repeater, which was also released in the 17th century. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cookson_repeater https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cookson_repeater I didn't know about those weapons and they're impressive (though very rare). But, there's still a huge leap between a Kalthoff/Cookson repeater and an AR-15. According to that weapon's manufacturer, an AR-15 has a 30 round magazine and can shoot 45 rounds a minute up to 1/3 of a mile!
- stale2002 9y ago
  IMO, the most important innovations around guns have mostly been because of changes in bullet technology. The modern day bullets are the things that have caused the massive increase in accuracy, energy, and range. And I guess, also decreasing prices, and reliability. It is perhaps possible to make a reasoned argument around THAT, but the arguments around guns rarely reach the point beyond "ban the guns that look scary".
  - 9y ago

ufo 9y ago

I'm not sure this OP's analogy is the most apt. If I understand correctly, the legal controversy behind the 2nd amendment has more to do with the bit about "well regulated militias" than with gun technology.